Jurisprudential Framework for State Criminal Procedure Amendments: The Chaurasia Precedent

 The Allahabad High Court's decision in Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia v. State of U.P. Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34988.establishes crucial jurisprudential principles that extend far beyond the specific context of NDPS anticipatory bail restrictions in Uttar Pradesh. This landmark judgment creates a comprehensive analytical framework for determining the fate of state amendments to criminal procedure codes when central legislation undergoes repeal and substantial re-enactment.

Core Jurisprudential Principles Established

Print Page

Supreme Court: Distinction between S 50 of PML Act and Section 160/161 of Code of Criminal Procedure

 Apart from the fact that Section 50 is a gender neutral, as it does not make any distinction between a man and a woman, there are glaring inconsistencies between the provisions contained in Section 50 of PMLA and Section 160/161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the "Information to the Police and their Powers to Investigate". Section 160 which falls under Chapter XII empowers the Police Officer making an investigation under the said Chapter to require any person to attend within the limits of his own or adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas, the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not "Investigation" in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the Authorities referred to in Section 48 of PMLA are not the Police Officers as held in Vijay Madanlal. It has been specifically laid down in the said decision that the statements recorded by the Authorities Under Section 50 of PMLA are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, rather such statements recorded by the authority in the course of inquiry are deemed to be the Judicial proceedings in terms of Section 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas the statements made by any person to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter XII of the Code could not be used for any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the Code. In view of such glaring inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Section 160/161 Code of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of Section 50 PMLA would prevail in terms of Section 71 read with Section 65 thereof. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2221-2222 of 2023

Decided On: 09.09.2024

Abhishek Banerjee and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0991/2024,2024 INSC 668.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Section 50 of PML Act is not violative of Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution.

 The above ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal clinches the contentions raised by the learned Counsels for the Appellants with regard to the provisions of Section 50 being violative of Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, and we need not further elaborate the same, nor do we need to deal with the decisions of this Court on the said issue which have already been dealt with in Vijay Madanlal. Suffice it to say that Section 50 enables the authorized Authority to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of the proceedings under the Act, and that the persons so summoned is bound to attend in person or through authorized agent, and to state truth upon the subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 50. At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the same being not "testimonial compulsion". At the stage of recording of statement of a person for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime, is not an investigation for prosecution as such. The summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorized officers. The consequences of Article 20(3) of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play only if the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed and his or her statements is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official. In our opinion, the learned Counsels for the Appellants have sought to reagitate the issues which have already been settled in Vijay Madanlal.

{Para 19}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2221-2222 of 2023

Decided On: 09.09.2024

Abhishek Banerjee and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0991/2024,2024 INSC 668.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: PMLA Prevails Over CrPC Regarding Procedure For Summoning Persons

 Apart from the fact that Section 50 is a gender neutral, as it does not make any distinction between a man and a woman, there are glaring inconsistencies between the provisions contained in Section 50 of PMLA and Section 160/161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the "Information to the Police and their Powers to Investigate". Section 160 which falls under Chapter XII empowers the Police Officer making an investigation under the said Chapter to require any person to attend within the limits of his own or adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas, the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not "Investigation" in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the Authorities referred to in Section 48 of PMLA are not the Police Officers as held in Vijay Madanlal. It has been specifically laid down in the said decision that the statements recorded by the Authorities Under Section 50 of PMLA are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, rather such statements recorded by the authority in the course of inquiry are deemed to be the Judicial proceedings in terms of Section 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas the statements made by any person to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter XII of the Code could not be used for any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the Code. In view of such glaring inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Section 160/161 Code of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of Section 50 PMLA would prevail in terms of Section 71 read with Section 65 thereof. {Para 16}

17. So far as the procedure to be followed by the Summoning Officer while exercising the powers Under Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the PMLA is concerned, it is pertinent to note that Rule 11 of the said Rules 2005, requires the Summoning Officer to follow the procedure as prescribed therein, i.e., to issue Summons in Form V appended to the said Rules. The said prescribed Form V requires Summoning Officer to mention not only the Name, Designation and Address of the Summoning Officer but also the details of the persons summoned as also the documents sought therein. The foot note of Form V also mentions that the proceedings shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, and if the person summoned fails to give evidence as mentioned in the Schedule, he would be liable to penal proceedings under the Act. Thus, there being specific procedure prescribed under the Statutory Rules of 2005 for summoning the person Under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the Act, the same would prevail over any other procedure prescribed under the Code, particularly the procedure contemplated in Section 160/161, as also the procedure for production of documents contemplated in Section 91 of the Code, in view of the overriding effect given to the PMLA over the other Acts including the Code of Criminal Procedure Under Section 71 r/w Section 65 of the PMLA.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2221-2222 of 2023

Decided On: 09.09.2024

Abhishek Banerjee and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0991/2024,2024 INSC 668.

Print Page

Bombay HC: High court and Session court has inherent power to grant interim anticipatory bail after enactment of BNSS

 Thus, there is absolutely no need of further discussion in

respect of the power of the Session Court or of this Court with

regard to grant of ad interim relief pending application for bail

in anticipation of arrest. Such power clearly exists as inherent

power under the provision of grant of bail. However, it is also

clear that even while granting ad interim relief, there has to be a

subjective satisfaction of the Court and such ad interim relief

should be on certain conditions and not blanket. It is required to

be considered on the premise of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India which is clearly traceable with an intent to protect life and

liberty of a person and more particularly to avoid unnecessary

arrest as well as to avoid any harassment in the hands of

investigating agency. {Para 88}

91. In the case of Shail Kumari Devi (supra) the Apex

Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C. observed that when the Magistrate is having power to

grant maintenance, implied in it power to grant interim

maintenance. The reasons of such power is also discussed by the

Apex Court that if such interim maintenance is not granted, the

wife would not be able to sustain till the main order is passed,

without any financial aid. Such observations apply with full force

to the matter in hand. If in a deserving case, ad interim relief is

not granted and in the meantime the arrest is effected, certainly

the application would become infructuous and the Accused will

have to resort to regular bail procedure. Thus, though such

power exists, the same has to be used by exercising the discretion

on case to case basis.

92. In the case of Bhadresh (supra) the Apex Court

discussed in detail the principles and guidelines regarding grant

of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C which shall

apply with equal force to the provisions of Section 482 of BNSS

since both these provisions are pari materia.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.618 OF 2024(F)

Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs  The Public Prosecutor,

 CORAM: BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

PRONOUNCED ON: 02nd August, 2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Cases Filed Before July 1, 2024, Will Be Investigated As Per CrPC And Not BNSS

Thus after carefully considering the above decisions of the

Apex Court and of this Court and the provisions of Section

531(2)(a) of BNSS 2023 thereby saving the provisions of Cr.P.C.

in connection with pending investigation, there is no confusion

or even doubt about the fact that provisions of CrPC 1973 would

apply with equal force to a pending investigation prior to

01.07.2024. In the present matter, the offences alleged against

the Respondents are clearly under the provisions of Indian Penal

Code and the FIR was registered even prior to 01.07.2024. The

investigation commenced on 14.06.2024 and same was pending

as on 01.07.2024 when the provisions of BNSS came into force.

67.  Accordingly, the provisions of Cr.P.C. 1973

shall apply and continue to apply to the investigation carried out

by the investigation agency in respect of FIR Nol. 1/2024

registered before the Economic Offences Cell Panaji Goa. Point

No. 1 is answered accordingly. {Para 66}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.618 OF 2024(F)

Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs  The Public Prosecutor,

 CORAM: BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

PRONOUNCED ON: 02nd August, 2024

Print Page

Important changes brought about by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023{Part 2}

1) Recording of evidence of successor of public servant

In order to expedite trials, a very timely provision has been added by way of Section 336 of BNSS. Whenever a report/document prepared by a public servant, scientific expert, or investigating officer is supposed to be used as evidence in a court, the maker of such document needs to testify before such court. However, due to unavoidable circumstances such as death, retirement, inordinate delay etc. in getting such person, the court can secure the attendance of the successor officer of such person. 

2) Another step taken to expedite trials is that now as per revised Section 274 of BNSS or Section 251 of CrPC regarding summons cases, a magistrate after recording reasons can now discharge the accused in case of groundless accusations.

3) In multiple instances, the role of other laws and agencies has been explicitly recognised by BNSS. For instance, earlier as per Section 268(2) of CrPC only state government could have passed a notification regarding prisoners, but now as per the revised corresponding Section 303(2) of BNSS even “Central government in cases instituted by its central agency” can do the same.

Print Page

Important changes brought about by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023{Part 1}

1)   Leniency in plea bargaining

The code is also making some other humane changes to show leniency to first-time offenders in less serious offences and simultaneously address the issue of rising population of under-trial prisoners. For instance, in Section 293 of BNSS corresponding to Section 265E of CrPC relating to disposal of case in plea bargaining procedure, punishments have been significantly reduced for first-time offenders. Now they can be punished to 1/4th and 1/6th of minimum punishment as compared to 1/2 and 1/4th punishment respectively under Sections 293(c) and 293(d) of BNSS.

2) Legal aid in trial or appeal

The new law also seeks to increase the ambit for provision of legal aid. Section 304(1) of CrPC earlier provided for legal aid “in a trial before the Court of Session”. However, the revised section 341(1) of BNSS has replaced this with “in a trial or appeal before a Court” which significantly increases the ambit of the same. 

Print Page

Important highlights of new IPC new CRPC and new Evidence act as enacted in 2023

 The Indian Parliament passed three significant bills in 2023 to replace the existing criminal laws, namely the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1898, and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. The new laws are the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha  Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya  Sanhita, which will replace the old criminal laws. Some of the key highlights and changes introduced by these new laws are as follows:

Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita (New IPC)

• The new law eliminates the sedition law and introduces a new form of sedition as subversive activities.
• It prescribes penalties for disseminating false information through various means.

Print Page

Digest of Important provisions of Criminal Procedure Code

 

1) Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 1)(S 1 to S 105 of CRPC)

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/02/important-provisions-of-crpc-1973part-1.html

2) Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 2)(S 105-A to S 176 of CRPC)

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/02/important-provisions-of-crpc-1973part.html

3) Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 3)(S 177 to S 237 of CRPC)

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/02/important-provisions-of-crpc-1973part_11.html

4) Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 4)(S 238 to S 326 of CRPC)

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/02/important-provisions-of-crpc-1973part_0.html

Print Page

Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 4)(S 238 to S 326 of CRPC)

 Chapter XIX

TRIAL OF WARRANT-CASES BY MAGISTRATES

A.—Cases instituted on a police report

238. Compliance with Section 207.—When, in any warrant-case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of Section 207.

239. When accused shall be discharged.—If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

Print Page

Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 3)(S 177 to S 237 of CRPC)

 Chapter XIII

JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.—Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of inquiry or trial.—(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or

(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or

(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,

it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.—When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.

180. Place of trial where act is an offence by reason of relation to other offence.—When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.

Print Page

Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 2)(S 105-A to S 176 of CRPC)

 Chapter XII

INFORMATION TO THE POLICE AND THEIR POWERS TO INVESTIGATE

154. Information in cognizable cases.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

Print Page

Important provisions of CRPC 1973(Part 1)(S 1 to S 105 of CRPC)

 5. Saving.—Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.

Chapter II

CONSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS AND OFFICES

6. Classes of Criminal Courts.

7. Territorial divisions.—

8. Metropolitan areas.

9. Court of Session.

Print Page

Criminal Procedure Code( Maharashtra Amendment) 2015

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CYEFLxrDJj6rj9Ktg-9nJshouia37NdL/view?usp=sharing.

MAHARASHTRA ACT No. XXXIII OF 2016.

(First published, after having received the assent of the President in the

“Maharashtra Government Gazette”, on the 30th August 2016).

An Act further to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in its

application to the State of Maharashtra.

WHEREAS it is expedient further to amend the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, in its application to the State of Maharashtra; it is hereby

enacted in the Sixty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows :—

1. (1) This Act may be called the Code of Criminal Procedure

(Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2015.

Print Page

Whether Appellate Court and the Revisional Court may pass a direction, that sentence granted to accused to run concurrently?

 It is settled position of the law that the direction to run the sentence concurrently may be passed by the Trial Court, Appellate Court and the Revisional Court.

13. Full Bench of Kerala High Court in Mani & Anr. vs. State of Kerala, has held that "when no direction is given by the trial court that the sentences were to run concurrently, direction can be issued by the High Court under inherent powers even if the stage of exercising discretion under section 427(1) of the Code is over, in circumstances which would serve the purposes mentioned in Section 482".

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. A. 611/2018, Crl. M.A. 40714/2019 and Crl. M.B. 5926/2020

Decided On: 12.06.2020

 Pankaj Verma  Vs.   State

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Suresh Kait, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/1232/2020

Print Page

Whether court can appoint court commissioner as per provision of CRPC?

CrPC 284: Section 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code

When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued

1. Whenever, in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Court of Magistrate that the examination of a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, and that the attendance of such witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable, the Court or Magistrate may dispense with such attendance and may issue a commission for the examination of the witness in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
   Provided that where the examination of the President or the Vice-President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory as a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, a commission shall be issued for the examination of such a witness.
2. The Court may, when issuing a commission for the examination of a witness for the prosecution direct that such amount as the Court considers reasonable to meet the expenses of the accused including the pleader’s fees, be paid by the prosecution.

Print Page

Where is provision to record demeanour of witness in criminal Procedure Code?

Section 280 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

280. Remarks respecting demeanour of witness. When a presiding Judge or Magistrate has recorded the evidence of a witness, he shall also record such remarks (if any) as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of such witness whilst under examination.

Print Page

When second criminal complaint on same facts is maintainable?

This Court in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthy v. The State of U.P. [MANU/SC/0018/2013 : (2013) 2 SCC 435, para 30] has observed that "the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the Court, or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit". In the matter on hand, the Complainant/Appellant came to know certain facts relating to the replacement of parts of the machine after the disposal of the first complaint, that too after getting a service report from "Key Pharma Limited, Delhi", and, therefore, there is no bar for the Appellant to lodge second complaint.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 2018 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 387/2018)

Decided On: 11.07.2018

 Om Prakash Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.

Print Page

Notes on appeal to Session court

The term appeal signifies the right of carrying a particular case from an inferior to a superior court with a view to ascertaining whether judgment of lower court is sustainable.

S 372 of CRPC{S 413 of BNNS}. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided :-No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for by this code or by any other law for the time being in force:

Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation,and such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court.[ Inserted by Amendment Act 2008]

Read important judgments on appeal to session court:
Click here

Print Page