When should the court not accept the defence of police that CCTV Camera of the police station was not working on the day of the incident?

 

When such system is installed, some officer needs to be

appointed to oversee the working of the system and every day the

recording needs to be seen by some officer and entry about it needs

to be made in some register. This procedure must have been

followed by police station. This Court wants to see that the registers

are maintained in respect of CCTV system in concerned police

station to ascertain truthfulness of the submission that CCTV system

was not working on that day. If the CCTV system was not working

on 20/04/2020, ordinarily entry of the same in the register could

have been taken immediately when fault was found with the CCTV

system. There is no such record produced by the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor. These circumstances create serious suspicion

against the concerned police station. This Court is hereby directing

the District Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad, to look into the

matter personally and make enquiry into the matter. This Court is

again observing that in many cases it is informed to the Court that

on that particular day the CCTV system was not working. This

cannot be allowed to happen as the purpose behind installing the

CCTV system itself is defeated when such submissions are accepted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

65. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1111 OF 2020

Wajid  Mukhtyarmiya Shaikh Vs The State of Maharashtra and others

C ORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &

M.G. SEWLIKAR , JJ.

DATE : 2nd December, 2020

Print Page

Whether the victim identifying accused in test identification parade is reliable if he had seen the accused in the police station?

PW-3 was cross-examined and a perusal of the same indicates that his testimony remained un-shaken. In his cross-examination, he reiterated that he had identified the appellant in TIP proceedings held in Tihar Jail before the Magistrate. However, he also admitted that the police had shown the accused to him in the police station before the TIP proceedings. He stated that he was told by the IO to identify the person who had committed the crime, amongst the other persons participating in the TIP proceedings before the Magistrate. However, he denied the suggestion that he had identified the appellant at the instance of the IO.

11. Mr. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the appellant's conviction on the sole ground that his identification was not reliable. He submitted that the complainant (PW-3) had admitted that the appellant was shown to him by the police at the police station prior to the TIP proceedings. He submitted that in the circumstances, the TIP proceedings could not be relied upon. He contended that even though PW-3 had identified the appellant in the dock, however, such evidence is not reliable. He submitted that dock identification is weak evidence and the appellant could not be convicted on the basis of such evidence. He relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nazim Khan @ Guddu v. State: CRL. A. 532/2012 decided on 08.05.2014 in support of his contention.

12. This Court does not find any merit in the appellant's contention that his identification as the person who had committed the offence is not reliable. Admittedly, the appellant had participated in the TIP proceedings and was identified by the complainant. The complainant had also identified the appellant in court. He had also denied the suggestion that the appellant was identified at the instance of the police. Although he admitted that he had seen the appellant at the police station, there is no reason to doubt his identification of the appellant. He had testified that police had asked him to identify the person who had committed the crime. And, he had done so. This Court finds no reason to doubt his testimony.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. A. 1018/2016

Decided On: 13.05.2020

 Pankaj  Vs. State

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

Print Page

Whether accused can be permitted to call general police diary?

However, in so far as General Diary is concerned, Section

  12 of the Police Act, 2011 ( Kerala ) would give an idea as

  to its purpose and intent.      It reads as follows:


              S.12. Police Station Diary:
              Every police station shall keep a general
              diary in such form as may be fixed by the
              government from time to time and record
              therein the substance of all complaints
              made, first information reports, charges,
              the names and details of complainants,
              opposite parties and all arrested persons,
              the details of the offences charged
              against them, and properties including
              weapons that may have been seized from
              their possession or otherwise.


12.Thus it is pellucid that the General Diary maintained at

  the Police Station is different from the Diary which is

  required to be maintained by the Police Officer who is

  making investigation under chapter XII of the code.


13.This misconception was taken note of by the Apex Court

  in Shamshul Kanwar V State of U.P. (AIR 1995 SC

  1748 ) and in paragraph No. 12 of the judgment has held

  that the General Diary as well as the diary maintained


  under Section 172 of the Code are essentially different.


14.What has now been sought for by the petitioner is the

  copies of the entries in the general diary maintained in the

  Police Station and not the Diary maintained by the

  investigating officer. The Station house officer of the

  Sultan Bathery Police Station was not conducting the

  investigation under Chapter XII. The embargo placed

  under Section 172 (3) of the Code will not apply to the

  General Diary maintained in the Police Station. The finding

  of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the General

  Diary maintained by the Station house officer is one

  maintained under Section 172 of the Code is clearly

  erroneous.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                     PRESENT:

                 MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

                14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
                   Crl.MC.No. 6069 of 2016 


                SHIJU.P.T. Vs STATE OF KERALA,
           Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)93 Ker

Print Page

Whether magistrate can direct SHO of police station outside his territorial jurisdiction to conduct investigation?

Sections 177 to 184 Cr.P.C. provides for territorial jurisdiction to try
the offence which qualification is not prescribed under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
but under Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. Hence the Magistrate cannot pass
directions under Sections 155 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. to an officer in-charge of a 
police station beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the area which has the
power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Decided on: 10th January, 2017
W.P.(CRL) 1253/2016 and Crl. M.A. No.6591/2016 (Stay)

NISHU WADHWA Vs SIDDHARTH WADHWA 

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

Print Page

Whether bail granted to accused can be automatically cancelled if he fails to remain present in police station as per bail condition?

Further, there is no automatic cancellation of bail.  Granting bail
is different from cancelling the bail.  Because both are based on different
grounds.  Even if an accused, who has been directed to appear before the
police station or Court,  as part of bail condition by the fact that he has
absented, he cannot be fault with.  Because there may be so many reasons for
the accused that there might have some melancholy in his family or he might
have fell sick or he might have been arrested in some other case or even due
to poverty he has no money in his hand that has prevented him to go to the
police station or even the defacto complainant or his opponent preventing him
from obeying the bail condition by engaging some hooligans so that the bail
conditions may not be observed and a bail can be cancelled.
        
        6. Therefore, some opportunity should have been given before cancelling
the bail order.  Cancellation of bail order is a serious one.  It is in the
nature of withdrawing the liberty already given to a person.  Principles of
natural justice is very important.  It is not found in any statute, but it is
found in the heart of every humanbeing.  Judges are not exception to this.
In this respect the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai seems to have
passed order mechanically.  He acted as motionless machine.   No highly
developed computer can replace a judge.  Because the inanimate computer has  
no feeling or sense. 
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 13.06.2016  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS            

C.R.L.RC(MD) Nos.253 of 2016 & 254 of 2016  
and 
CRL MP(MD)No.3337 & 3338 of 2016    


1. Uma Maheshwari                               ... Petitioner  in Crl.RC.253/2016
2. R.Hariharan                                  ... Petitioner  in Crl.RC.254/2016

-vs-

The State Rep.by 
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai                                                    ... Respondent in both Crl.RCs.

Print Page

Whether vigilance cell of high court can be treated as police station?

If the Vigilance Cell were to be treated as a 'police station' and the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Registrar General were to be treated as SHO, it should have been declared generally or specially by the State Government to be a police station and no such notification is forthcoming. Even otherwise, in view of ensuring the independence of the judiciary and protection of judiciary from executive interference, the State Government cannot declare the Vigilance Cell of the High Court as a 'police station' and this can be done only if the High Court wants the State Government to do so. Just because the police officers and officials have been posted to the Vigilance Cell, it will not clothe the State Government with any power to declare it as a police station.

Karnataka High Court

Sharanappa S/O Veeranna Sajjan vs State Of Karnataka on 13 August, 2015

Author: A.V.Chandrashekara

Citation;2016 CRLJ764 KARNAT                        

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to register second FIR on same facts in different police station?

 In another case titled as Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah
versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in
2013 AIR SCW 2353, the Apex Could has laid down the same law.
It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 52 and para 53 of
the judgment herein:
"52. .....................

d) Further, on receipt of information about a
cognizable offence or an incident giving rise
to a cognizable offence or offences and on
entering FIR in the Station House Diary, the
officer-in-charge of the police station has to
investigate not merely the cognizable offence
reported in the FIR but also other connected
offences found to have been committed in
the course of the same transaction or the
same occurrence and file one or more reports
as provided in Section 173 of the Code. Subsection
(8) of Section 173 of the Code
empowers the police to make further
investigation, obtain further evidence (both
oral and documentary) and forward a further
report (s) to the Magistrate. A case of fresh
investigation based on the second or
successive FIRs not being a counter case, filed
in connection with the same or connected
cognizable offence alleged to have been
committed in the course of the same
transaction and in respect of which pursuant
to the first FIR either investigation is
underway or final report under Section
173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate,
is liable to be interfered with by the High
Court by exercise of power under Section 482
of the Code or under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution.
e) First Information Report is a report which
gives first information with regard to any
offence. There cannot be second FIR in
respect of the same offence/event because
whenever any further information is received
by the investigating agency, it is always in
furtherance of the first FIR.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
 CWP No. 2526 of 2015-C

 Decided on: 30.05.2015
Raj Pal Singh V Central Bureau of Investigation & others 
Coram
 Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Dated;May 30, 2015
Citation;2015 CRLJ 3032

Print Page

Whether Anticipatory bail can be cancelled on a single failure to attend the police station?

 There  is  no  law 
which   says   that   on   a   single   failure   to   attend   the   police 
station,   bail   granted   to   a   person   would   automatically   be 
cancelled.   If there is a failure to comply with a condition, 
the Court is required to seek explanation from the accused 
persons and then judge whether the failure was willful and 
deliberate, and further, whether for that lapse, the extreme 
step of cancellation of bail should be taken or not? Here, the 
Court   has   taken   it   for   granted   that  once   the   condition  
imposed by the Court is breached, cancellation of bail would  

automatically follow.  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 811 OF 2013


 Dinesh Hilal Mahajan, Vs  The State of Maharashtra,

        

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
Dated: October 18, 2013.
Citation;2014 ALLMR(cri) 543

Print Page

Whether Juvenile can be directed to attend police station in hearing of Anticipatory bail application?

 What should have been done by the learned Sessions Judge when the juvenile applied for anticipatory bail, which in the present case was opposed by the Public Prosecutor, has also to be looked into. So far as the juvenile in conflict with law, the c

ompetent authority to deal with him is the Juvenile Justice Board. But, it has to be noticed whatever powers enjoined by the Juvenile Justice Board can be exercised by the High Court or the Court of Session. S. 6 of the Act deals with the powers of the Juvenile Justice Board. Sub-s.(2) of that section reads thus:

6. Powers of Juvenile Justice Board:

(1) X X X

(2) The powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Session, when the proceeding comes before them in appeal, revision or otherwise.

So much so, when any proceeding in relation to a juvenile comes before the High Court or the Court of Session all powers conferred on the Board under the Act can be exercised. Such proceeding need not arise from appeal or revision. The words "or otherwise" used in sub-s.(2) of S. 6 of the Act is quite significant and it has to be given true meaning and spirit taking note of the objectives of the enactment When that be so, even in an application moved under S. 438 of the Code, orders could be passed by the Sessions Judge exercising the powers of the Juvenile Justice Board. At any rate, orders passed by the Sessions Judge should be in conformity with the provisions of the Act and not against or violative of the spirit and objectives of that Act. Where the police apprehends a juvenile in conflict with law, the Act mandates for placing the juvenile in charge of the special juvenile police unit or the designated police officer, and, such unit or police officer further bound to report the matter immediately to a member of the Juvenile Justice Board, there could be no direction or order to release the juvenile in the event of his arrest on execution of a bond as passed under Annexure-V order. Mandatory prescriptions covered by S. 10 of the Act have to be complied with by the police officer in the event of apprehension/arrest of juvenile in conflict with law, and once custody of the apprehended juvenile is handed over to the juvenile special unit or the designated police officer, what is his control over the juvenile is also taken care of under S. 11 of the Act. Such being the provisions covered by the Act to ensure the right of the juvenile in conflict with law, to prevent him from being exposed to police and police stations, Annexure-V order passed directing execution of bond by the petitioner in the event of his arrest and all other conditions imposed thereunder have no sanction of law, and they are vacated.

2013CriLJ851, ILR2013(1)Kerala48, 2013(1)KLJ102, 2012(4)KLT755, 2013(1)RCR(Criminal)809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Crl. M.C. No. 3223 of 2012

Decided On: 16.11.2012

Appellants: Gopakumar
Vs.
Respondent: State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Satheesachandran

Print Page