Digest - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Digest - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.53 & 54, 107, 197, Indian Penal code, 1860, Ss.500, 354 & 498* - Adultery - Bald allegation that appellant is living in illicit relationship - Held, in such situation, there is no scope for the respondent to invoke S.107 CrPC and contend that he acted by virtue of authority vested in him.
2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 284 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.53 & 54* - Medical Examination of person suspected or accused of having committed an offence - Cannot be forcibly subjected to medical examination - If police officers use force for that purpose person aggrieved can lawfullyexercise such right of private defence to resist such force.
2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 284 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376* - Rape - Medical examination of accused - Provision of S.53-A Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature - Once a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape, the offender should be subjected to medical examination for his DNA profile.
2013(3) Criminal Court Cases 549 (Rajasthan)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 (As inserted w.e.f. 23.06.2006)* - Rape - DNA test - With incorporation of S.53-A Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 23.06.2006 it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test in such type of case, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused - Even prior to the insertion of this provision prosecution could have resorted for DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of accused with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a fool proof case - But when not done so, prosecution must face the consequences.
2011(3) Criminal Court Cases 427 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.53A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 as inserted w.e.f. 23.6.2006)* - Rape case - Abduction of prosecutrix by 11 persons in a Maruti Van and commission of rape on her by two of them - All the accused acquitted on the followinggrounds : (i) Prosecutrix knew the name of the accused but failed to record the same in the FIR, she only gave the description of the accused as `Gitta' (short statured) which fact was belied and falsified by the appellant's wife and the report of the jailer; (ii) Allegations that two accused persons committed rape one after the other in presence of other accused not believable when crime of rape is committed in privacy; (iii) As per the prosecutrix she met her mother and sister at bus stop after the occurrence - but they were not examined - Prosecutrix had not received any significant injuries on other parts of body - Injuries on her private parts were much less as mentioned by her in the FIR, except for the cheek bite; (iv) Prosecutrix had travelled certain distance in Maruti Van after alleged abduction but she did not raise any alarm for help - None of the inmates of the house from where she was abducted and who had raised hue and cry for help at the time of abduction examined as witnesses; (v) Statement of prosecutrix that all the 11 persons were in the Maruti Van not believable as it is extremely difficult for 11 persons to be accommodated in the Maruti Van, the seating capacity of which is only 5; (vi) During the course of investigation, prosecutrix failed to identify the kothi where the alleged rape was committed; (vii) Statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. first before the Judicial magistrate and thereafter statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded - In fact the procedure should have been otherwise - This shows that right from the beginning the prosecution was doubtful on the trust worthiness of the prosecutrix herself and for that reason she was first bound down by her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.; (viii) In under garments of prosecutrix, male semen was found but were not sent for analysis to match with the semen of the accused; (ix) After incorporation of S.53-A Cr.P.C. it was necessary for the prosecution to go in for the DNA test facilitating to prove of case against accused but no such test was conducted.
2011(3) Criminal Court Cases 427 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.54, 55, 432, 433, 433-A, Prisons Act, 1894, S.59(5)* - Remission to convicts - No convict has a fundamental right of remission or shortening of sentence - State, however, in exercise of its executive power of remission must consider each individual case keeping in view the relevant facts - Power of State to issue general instructions, so that no discrimination is made, is also permissible in law.
2007(4) Criminal Court Cases 913 (S.C.)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.57, 167* - Transit remand - Accused contended that he was arrested from Noida but he was not produced before Illaqa Magistrate for transit remand nor permission from Delhi Court was taken for taking him to Farukhabad which was in violation of police rules - Accused brought to Delhi just within one hour as such it was not essential to obtain transit remand from the concerned Court at Noida - Similarly, no specific permission was required to make any particular recovery from Farukhabad when accused was in police custody - Contention not tenable.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 309 (Delhi) (DB)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.58, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 57* - Arrest under Narcotic Drugs and Psyhotropic Substances Act, 1985 - No duty is cast on officer arresting accused to send any report to District Magistrate - Provision of Section 58 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is not applicable to such a case.
2006(2) Criminal Court Cases 953 (Kerala) (DB)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.60* - Escaped prisoner - Police officer when satisfied that the person is an escaped prisoner he can arrest him without warrant and produce him before the magistrate having jurisdiction within that local limit and that magistrate can pass appropriate orders regarding re-transmission of that prisoner to the concerned jail from where he escaped.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Kerala)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.60, 167(2)* - Escaped prisoner - Committing offence in another State - Granted default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Held, petitioner is not entitled to the relief of being released forthwith - Being a convicted prisoner, his movements can be restricted, till the execution of the sentence is completed.
2014(4) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Kerala)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.62, 63, 64, 65, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138* - Dishonour of cheque - Service of summons - Can be effected through registered post/speed post or by courier - Court can declare served in case there is refusal to receive summons - Court can take coercive measures for entering appearance of accused - Service by affixation is a valid mode of service under criminal law - Wherever accused is evading service of summons, Court should direct service through affixation as provided u/s 65 Cr.P.C.
2010(4) Criminal Court Cases 549 (Delhi)

*Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.62 & 71, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 34* - Criminal Breach of trust - Conviction - Legality of - Offence purely of technical nature - Amount involved also not very huge and later on paid within very short time - Petitioners or other accused not in any manner contributed for delay - Magistrate passed orders without application of mind and issued bailable warrants without examining report of police in respect of service of summons and without recording reasons for issuing bailable warrants - No satisfactory explanation given by State Government and Provident Fund Commissioner for continuation of prosecution despite delay of 22 years - Proceedings against petitioner liable to be quashed.
2012(4) Criminal Court Cases 191 (Bombay)