Supreme court : Accused or person suspected to have committed crime has right to be heard in a revision filed against dismissal of complaint u/s. 203 Cr.P.C.

 The restoration of the complaint by the Additional Sessions Judge was undoubtedly to the prejudice of the Appellant. The right of the Appellant to be heard at this stage need not detain us any further in view of Manharibhai (supra) observing as follows:

53..... We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by the complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint Under Section 203 of the Code at the stage Under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated Under Section 202 of the Code, the Accused or a person who is suspected to have committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the Revisional Court. In other words, where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate Under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as Accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If the Revisional Court overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to have committed the crime have, however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the question accordingly. The judgments of the High Courts to the contrary are overruled.{Para 7}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2183 of 2011

Decided On: 18.06.2020

Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs. Satish Atmaram Talekar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Author: Navin Sinha, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0485/2020,(2020) 6 SCC 625.

Print Page

Can the Court treat the witness's statement identifying the suspect in the Test identification parade as substantive evidence?

  Thus, it is clear that the Test Identification Parade is conducted by the Magistrate only in aid of investigation and the statement of the witness identifying the suspect in the parade cannot be treated as a substantive evidence of identification in the trial of the accused. It is only corroborative evidence.{Para 83}

In the High Court of Madras

(Before Indira Banerjee, C.J. and P.N. Prakash, J.)

Murugasamy  Vs  State 

Print Page

Whether suspect can claim that he should be interrogated in presence of his lawyer?

 We do not find any force in the arguments of Mr. Salve and Mr. Lalit that if a person is called away from his own house and questioned in the atmosphere of the customs office without the assistance of his lawyer or his friends his constitutional right under Article 21 is violated. The argument proceeds thus: if the person who is used to certain comforts and convenience is asked to come by himself to the Department for answering questions it amounts to mental torture. We are unable to agree. It is true that large majority of persons connected with illegal trade and evasion of taxes and duties are in a position to afford luxuries on lavish scale of which an honest ordinary citizen of this country cannot dream of and they are surrounded by persons similarly involved either directly or indirectly in such pursuits. But that cannot be a ground for holding that he has a constitutional right to claim similar luxuries and company of his choice. Mr. Salve was fair enough not to pursue his argument with reference to the comfort part, but continued to maintain that the appellant is entitled to the company of his choice during the questioning. The purpose of the enquiry under the Customs Act and the other similar statutes will be completely frustrated if the whims of the persons in possession of useful information for the departments are allowed to prevail. For achieving the object of such an enquiry if the appropriate authorities be of the view that such persons should be dissociated from the atmosphere and the company of persons who provide encouragement to them in adopting a non-cooperative attitude to the machineries of law, there cannot be any legitimate objection in depriving them of such company. The relevant provisions of the Constitution in this regard have to be construed in the spirit they were made and the benefits thereunder should not be "expanded" to favour exploiters engaged in tax evasion at the cost of public exchequer. Applying the just, fair and reasonable test' we held that there is no merit in the stand of appellant before us.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 301-302 of 1987

Decided On: 14.05.1992

Poolpandi etc. etc.
Vs.
 Superintendent, Central Excise and others etc. etc.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: 
L.M. Sharma, J.S. Verma and Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.

citations: 1992 AIR 1795, 1992 SCR (3) 247

Print Page

Whether court can summon suspect even though he is not chargesheeted by police?

 It is well accepted in criminal jurisprudence that F.I.R. may not
contain all the details of the occurrence or even the names of all the
accused. It is not expected to be an encyclopedia even of facts already
known. There are varities of crimes and by their very nature, details of
some crimes can be unfolded only by a detailed and expert investigation.
This is more true in crimes involving conspiracy, economic offences or
cases not founded on eye witness accounts. The fact that Police chose
not to send up a suspect to face trial does not affect power of the trial
court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon such a person on
account of evidence recorded during trial. This is the factual scenario in
the case at hand also.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3438 of 2014]
Hardei V State of U.P. 
Dated;March 30, 2016.

Print Page

Landmark judgment of Supreme Court on the point of right to hearing to accused prior to order of issue process by Magistrate

We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in P. Sundarrajan1 , Raghu Raj Singh Rousha2 and A. N. Santhanam3 . We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed crime is entitled to hearing by the revisional court. In other words, where complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate underSection 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If the revisional court overturns the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the complaint to have committed crime have, however, no right to participate in the proceedings nor they are entitled to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer the question accordingly. The judgments of the High Courts to the contrary are overruled.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sec. 202 - In the proceedings under the section, the accused/suspect is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not - Upto the stage of issuance of process, the accused cannot claim any right of hearing.

Supreme Court of India

Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & ... vs Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & ... on 1 October, 2012

Bench: R.M. Lodha, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya 
REPORTABLE

Citation;2013CriLJ144,(2012)10SCC517

(2013)2GLR1440,  2013(2)PLJR22, 

2012(4)RCR(Criminal)689,

Print Page

Whether suspect can take plea that his reputation is lowered as he is named as accused in chragesheet?

 In my opinion, therefore, without suppressing any material fact from the Court the name of suspect by whom the offence in question appears to have been committed must be mentioned in the final report, with reasons for such final opinion of the investigating officer and material supporting it must be disclosed to the trial Court by the investigating officer in his final police report to the Court (Special Court in this case) giving all the particulars and vital information under section 173 of the Cr.P.Code. In the result no fault can be found with the investigating officer if he names the person as suspect pending the investigation against him, who in his opinion appears to have committed the offence but could not be charge sheeted for want of an opportunity to arrest and interrogate him. At this stage when investigation is still pending against the Petitioner it would be premature to exonerate the Petitioner on the pretext of infringement of his reputation. The question which is raised of Personal liberty or fundamental right of the Petitioner is to be examined on the basis of finding as to whether due process of law and procedure has been followed as against him. It would amount to pre- judging the question, bearing in mind that the petitioner has continued to dodge the investigating officer, by his ingenuity to file the writ petitions and deprived the investigating officer from arresting and investigating against him for prolonged period, while petitioner was armed with interim order 'not to arrest him'.

 It is well established by now that a person has right to defend his reputation, being one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of Smt.Kiran Bedi vs. Committee of Inquiry & Anr. reported in (1989) 1 SCC 494 had occasion to observe thus:

"21. The reason for the importance attached

with regard to the matter of safeguarding the

reputation of a person being prejudicially

affected in Clause (b) of Section 8-B of the Act is not far to seek.

Bombay High Court

Gyanchand Verma vs 3) The Director General on 24 January, 2011

Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, A.P. Bhangale

Print Page