The Factories Act is a special statute dealing with a specific field and provides taking cognizance of certain offences related to violation of the Act as well as Rules made thereunder and specific period of limitation has been provided under Section 106 of the Act for taking cognizance of the offences. Explanation thereto also describes manner in which limitation shall be calculated in continuing offence. However, there is no specific provision with regard to extension of period of limitation as provided under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cr.P.C. is a statute general in nature and Section 4(2) of Cr.P.C., provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to provisions of Cr.P.C., but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offence. In the Factories Act, there is specific provision providing limitation for taking cognizance of commission of offence, including continuing offence, but there is no provision of extension of time of period of limitation, corresponding to Section 473 Cr.PC. Saugata Gupta v. State of H.P., 2020 (164) FLR 589.
Tag Archives: investigation
From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub-section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after submission of Police Report under sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right to “further” investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not “fresh investigation” or “re investigation”. The meaning of “further” is additional; more; or supplemental. “Further” investigation, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. Arun Kumar v. State of U.P., 2016 (95) ACC 823.
In Devarapali Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252, National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz, (2013) 2 SCC 488, Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615, Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 SCC 185, the scheme of Sections 156 (3) and 202 has been discussed. It was observed that power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before taking cognizance and was in the nature of pre-emptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation beginning with Section 156 and ending with report or charge sheet under Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 applies at post cognizance stage and the direction for investigation was for the purpose of deciding whether there was sufficient ground to proceed. Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439.
The reasonableness and credibility of the information is not a condition precedent to the registration of a case. The import of casting a mandatory obligation on the Officer-in-Charge of a police station to record information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon, has been emphasized in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC) and in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1. At the same time arrest of an accused immediately on the registration of an FIR has been held not to be mandatory. The Criminal Procedure code confers a power upon the police to close a matter both before and after the investigation. A police officer can foreclose an FIR before an investigation under Section 157, if appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to investigate it. The police officer is empowered also to investigate the matter and file a final report under Section 173. In Lalita Kumari v.Government of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 (84) ACC 719 (SC), it was held that the police is not liable to launch an investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The scheme of the Code not only ensures that the time of the police should not be wasted on false and frivolous information but also that the police should not intentionally refrain from doing its duty of investigating cognizable offences. Jagannath Verma v. State of U.P., 2015 (88) ACC 1 (FB).
Fair Trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair Trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the Society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded to every accused in the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty and the accused must get free and fair, just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case. Any breach or violation of public rights and duties adversely affects the community as a whole and it becomes harmful to the society in general. In all circumstances, the courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold the “majesty of the law” and the courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that occurs in relation to criminal proceedings.
Denail of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. Since the object of the trial is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Justice should not only be done but seen to have been done. Therefore, free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to get a fair trial is not only a basic fundamental right but a human right also. Therefore, any hindrance in a fair trial could be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. “No trial can be allowed to prolong indefinitely due to the lethargy of the prosecuting agency or the State Machinery and that is the raison d’etre in prescribing the time frame” for conclusion of the trial.
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to a fair trial what is enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Therefore, fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way, An important facet of a democratic polity and is governed by the rule of law. Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights. J. Jayalalithaa and others v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 2 SCC 401.
In a recent Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it was held as under:
“(1) The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(2) If the Information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(3) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(4) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(5) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(6) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial Offences
(c) Medical Negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over three months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
(7) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(8) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, it was held that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registering of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
Section 2 (h) of the CRPC reads as under:
2.(h) “investigation” includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf;
Section 2(h) CrPC defines “investigation” and it includes all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. It ends with the formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected, there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173. Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja .
A three Judge Bench in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi , while dealing with investigation, has stated that under the Code, investigation consists generally of the following steps:
(a) Proceeding to the spot,
(b) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case,
(c) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender,
(d) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of:
(i) The examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit,
(ii) The search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial, and
(e) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a chargesheet under Section 173.
In Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. , it has been opined that:
“arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and connection of other persons, if any, in the crime.”
In Niranjan Singh v. State of U.P. , it has been laid down that investigation is not an inquiry or trial before the Court and that is why the Legislature did not contemplate any irregularity in investigation as of sufficient importance to vitiate or otherwise form any infirmity in the inquiry or trial. In S.N.Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari , it has been observed that the power of police to investigate is independent of any control by the Magistrate. In State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha , it has been observed that there is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment and further investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive in the Police Department. Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others,(2013) 1 SCC 314.
The mere undertaking of a further investigation either by the investigating officer on his own or upon the directions of the superior police officer or pursuant to a direction by the Magistrate concerned to whom the report is forwarded does not mean that the report submitted under Section 173 (2) is abandoned or rejected. It is only that either the investigating agency or the court concerned is not completely satisfied with the material collected by the investigating agency and is of the opinion that possibly some more material is required to be collected in order to sustain the allegations of the commission of the offence indicated in the report. Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal v. State of Gujarat and another, (2013) 1 SCC 197.