CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (Cr.P.C.

)
Q1- What are the different courts exercising jurisdiction under this code? Explain their powers.
Answer. Criminal Court – ‘Court’ has not been defined in the code or in any other Act. ‘Court’ may be defined as “a
place where Justice is Judicially, administered”. The words ‘Court’ and ‘Magistrate’ being synonymous terms, are
inter-changeable and, therefore, a Criminal Court means and includes every Judge or Magistrate dealing with Criminal
cases or engaged in Judicial Proceeding.
Classes of Criminal Courts (Section 6) - Besides the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any law, other than
this Code, there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely:-
i. Courts of Session;
ii. Judicial Magistrate of the first class and, in any Metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrate;
iii. Judicial Magistrate of the second class; and
iv. Executive Magistrates.
Court of Session - Section 7(1) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 states that “The State Government shall establish a
Court of Session for every session’s division. The judge of the Sessions court is appointed by the High Court. In the
hierarchy Sessions court is followed by Judicial Magistrate Class I and then judicial magistrate of Class II. In
metropolitan areas, it is followed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and metropolitan magistrate. An Executive
Magistrate is one of the classes of courts only while performing judicial functions.
Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class - The second lowest level of the structure that forms the Criminal Couts in
India. As stated in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, a State Government may establish a Court of Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class with the consultation of the High Court of the respective state. The Judicial Magistrate is
generally controlled by the Sessions Judge with the Chief Judicial Magistrate as a subordinate as stated in Section 15
of the Code. A Judicial Magistrate of First Class has the power to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term that
does not exceed three years, or of a fine that does not exceed Ten Thousand Rupees or of both.
Courts of Judicial Magistrate of Second Class - The lowest in the hierarchy that forms the Criminal Court structure in
India is the Courts of the Judicial Magistrate of Second Class. As stated in Section 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code
of 1973, a State Government may establish a Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class with the consultation of
the High Court of the respective state. A Judicial Magistrate of First Class has the power to pass a sentence of
imprisonment for a term that does not exceed more than one year, or of a fine that does not exceed Five Thousand
Rupees or of both.
The Executive Magistrates - The Executive Magistrate is an officer of the law who is vested with specific powers and
duties as stated under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Penal Code. These officers do not hold power to
accuse nor pass any verdict of sorts. An individual arrested on the orders of a court outside its local jurisdiction would
be produced before the Executive Magistrate who may also set a bail amount for the arrested individual to avoid the
custody of the Police depending on the warrant. This officer may also pass orders restraining individuals from
entering a specific area and authorised to use force against people.
Power of the Courts
Sentences which may be passed by the criminal have been mentioned under section 28 & 29 of the criminal
procedure code.
Sentences which High Courts and Sessions Judges may pass - According to Section 28, a High Court may pass any
sentence authorised by law. A Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law,
but any sentence of death passed by any such judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court.
An Assistant Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment
for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding ten years. Thus, Section 26 of the Code enumerates the types of
Courts in which different offences can be tried and then under Section 28, it spells out the limits of sentences which
such Courts are authorised to pass.
Sentences which Magistrates may pass - Section 29 lays down the quantum of sentence which different categories of
Magistrates are empowered to impose. The powers of individual categories of Magistrates to pass the sentence are
as under:
1. The Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death
or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years.
2. A Magistrate of the first class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or of
a fine not exceeding five thousand rupees, or of both.
3. A Magistrate of the second class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or
of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or of both.
A Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall have the powers of the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate and that of a
Metropolitan Magistrate, and the powers of the Court of a Magistrate of the First class.
Sentence of imprisonment in default of fine
Where a fine is imposed on an accused and it is not paid, the law provides that he can be imprisoned for a term in
addition to a substantive imprisonment awarded to him, if any. Section 30 defines the limits of Magistrate’s powers to
award imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
It provides that the Court of a Magistrate may award such term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine as is
authorised by law provided the that the term:
1. is not in excess of the powers of the Magistrate under Section 29; and
2. where imprisonment has been awarded as part of the substantive sentence, it should not exceed 1/4th of the
term of imprisonment which the Magistrate is competent to inflict as punishment for the offence otherwise
than as imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
Sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial
Section 31 relates to the quantum of punishment which the Court is authorised to impose where the accused is
convicted of two or more offences at one trial.
1. When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of
section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments
prescribed therefore which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of
imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct,
unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.
2. In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate
punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on
conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court: Provided that-
i. in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than fourteen years;
ii. the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is
competent to inflict on a single offence.
3. For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against
him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence.

Q2- Discuss the provisions relating to bail in Criminal Procedure Code.

Answer. Provisions of Bail under Criminal Procedure Code -
1. Bail in case of bailable offence - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains elaborate provisions relating
to bails. Section 436 provides for the release on bail of a person accused of a bailable offense.
In what cases bail to be taken (Section 436)
(1) When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant
by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in
the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be
released on bail: Provided that such officer or Court, if he or it thinks fit, may, instead of taking bail from such person,
discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided: Provided further
that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of sub- section (3) of section 116 or section
446A 1.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where a person has failed to comply with the conditions of
the bail- bond as regards the time and place of attendance, the Court may refuse to release him on bail, when on a
subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the Court or is brought in custody and any such refusal shall
be without prejudice to the powers of the Court to call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty
thereof under section 446.
In Hussainara v. Home secretary, 1980 1 SCC 81, Bhagwati, j. Observed that one of the reasons why our legal and
judicial system continually denies justice to the poor by keeping them for long years in pre-trial detention in our
highly unsatisfactory bail system. It suffers from property-oriented approach which proceeds on the erroneous
assumption that rise of monetary loss is only deterred against fleeing from justice.
However, by Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 sub-section (1) Section 436 was amended to make a
mandatory provision that if the arrested person is accused of a bailable offense is an indigent and cannot furnish
surety, the courts shall release him on his execution of a bond without sureties. Legislature by Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2005 insertedSection 436A which lays down the maximum period for which an under trial
prisoner can be detained.
2. Bail in case of Non-bailable offence - Provisions, as to bail in case of non-bailable offence, is laid down in
Section 437 of the code. This section gives the Court or a police officer power to release an accused on bail in a
non-bailable case, unless there appear reasonable grounds that the accused has been guilty of an offence
punishable with death or with imprisonment for life. But (1) a person under the age of sixteen years (2) a
woman; or (3) a sick or infirm person may be released on bail even if the offence charged is punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. Where a person is charged with a non-bailable offence, but it appears in the
course of the trial that he is not guilty of such offence, he can be immediately released on bail pending further
inquiry.
The same may be done after the conclusion of a trial and before judgment is pronounced, if the person is believed not
to be guilty of a nonbailable offence. As a safeguard, the section provides for review of the order by the Court which
has released the person on bail. The power of the Magistrate under this section cannot be treated at par with the
powers of the Sessions Court and the High Court under Section 439.
Grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception. But while granting it the Court has to be satisfied that the order
to be passed is in the interest of justice. (Mazahar Ali v. State, 1982 CrLJ 1223, 1225 (J&K)
Anticipatory Bail: Section 438 - Anticipatory bail means bail in anticipation of an arrest. Any person who apprehends
arrest under a non-bailable offence in India can apply for Anticipatory Bail under the provisions of section 438 of The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is basically bail before arrest, a person arrested cannot seek Anticipatory Bail, he
would have to move for a regular bail. The words anticipatory bail is neither found in section 438 nor in its marginal
note. In fact, anticipatory bail is a misnomer. When a court grants anticipatory bail, what it does is to make an order
that in the event of arrest, the person shall be released on bail.
The legislature in its wisdom incorporated this provision for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest is to prevent
disgrace of being jailed or remaining in custody before he can be released on bail. The old code of criminal procedure
did not have any provision for the same and the lawmakers realized that false and frivolous cases are filed against
some people and such persons have to necessarily be arrested before they could seek bail. Thus a mechanism for
preventing undue harassment and disgrace from arrest and detention was devised.
In the landmark Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia case, the apex court opined that “It is conceptualized on the idea of
protecting personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India”. This said, it is a discretionary power and is
not a matter of right. The court would use the discretion according to the facts and circumstances of the case and
under stipulated guidelines.
Cancellation of Bail
Rejection of Bail is different from the cancellation of bail. (Aslam Desai v. State of Maharashtra, 1992 AIR SCW 2621)
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains two provisions for cancellation of Bail. The first one is laid down in
Section 437(5) and the other in section 439(2). According to Section 437(5) “any court which has released a person on
bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 437, may if it considers it necessary so to direct such person to
be arrested, and committed to custody”. Thus under this section a Magistrate does not have an authority to cancel
bail granted by a police officer.
For cancellation of bail in such situation, power of the High Court or the Court of Session under Section 439(2) will
have to be invoked. Section 439(2) lays down that a High Court or a Court of Session may direct that any person who
has been released on bail under this chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. Thus the power given to the
High Court and court of Session is very wide.
441. Bond of accused and sureties.
(1) Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police
officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on
bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in
the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be.
(2) Where any condition is imposed for the release of any person on bail, the bond shall also contain that condition.
(3) If the case so requires, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High
Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge.
(4) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are fit or sufficient, the Court may accept affidavits in proof
of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency or fitness of the sureties, or, if it considers necessary, may
either hold an inquiry itself or cause an inquiry to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to the Court, as to such
sufficiency of fitness.

Q3- Who is Public Prosecutor? Who can be appointed as a public prosecutor?

Answer. Section 24 of Cr.P.C deals with ‘ Public Prosecutors’: A public prosecutor is appointed to make prosecution,
appeals or judicial proceedings in each High Court or High Court, the Central Government or the State Government,
under the Provision of section 24 of CrPC. A public prosecutor is appointed by the State Government in every district.
In order to strengthen the judicial process, more than one assistant public prosecutor can also be appointed in a
district.
Initially, the Commission has gone into the role of the Public Prosecutors as stated in the judgments of the Supreme
Court and the earlier Reports of the Law Commission. The Commission has stated that the Public Prosecutor has to be
independent of the executive and all external influences, also independent of the police and the investigation
process. He cannot advice the police in matters relating to investigation. He has duties to the State, to the Court and
to the accused. He has to discharge his duties objectively. He is in the position of a minister of justice assisting the
Court.
As regard the procedure for appointment of Public Prosecutors, Addl. Public Prosecutors in the Sessions Court, the
requirement in sec. 24(4) of the District Magistrate consulting the Sessions Judge is salutary and it is unfortunate that
some States have dispensed with this procedure of consultation with the Sessions Judge.
Appointment as a public prosecutor - The provisions of sec. 24(6) of the Code as enacted by Parliament states that
once a Regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers is constituted in a State, all appointments to the post of Public
Prosecutor/Addl. Public Prosecutor “shall” be made only from the cadre. Several States have made amendments
substituting the word ‘shall’ by the word ‘may’ as they felt that some of the posts of Public Prosecutor/Addl. Public
Prosecutor must be allowed to be filled from the Bar of the Sessions Court. The Law Commission in this Report has
stated that in as much as the Asst. Public Prosecutors who are in the Regular Cadre have practised only in the
Magistrates Courts which generally try offences where punishment of imprisonment can only be upto seven years, it
is necessary that Public Prosecutor/Addl. Public Prosecutor’s posts in the Sessions Courts are filled also by members
of the Bar who practice in the Sessions Court, in as much as they have greater experience in dealing with Sessions
cases where punishment could be death or imprisonment for life. We have, therefore, suggested that the post of
Public Prosecutor must always be filled by a member of the Bar from a panel prepared by the District Magistrate in
consultation with the Sessions Judge, that 50% of the posts of Addl. Public Prosecutor in a District must also be filled
by the Bar from the panel prepared by the District Magistrate under sec. 24(4) in consultation with the Session Judge
and remaining 50% of the posts of Addl. Public Prosecutor in a District must be filled from among Asst. Public
Prosecutors who are in the Regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers. We have also recommended an express provision
to be inserted in sec. 24(4) that the Session Judge must recommend names of lawyers who have personally
conducted substantial number of Sessions cases and who bear good character. If such a Central amendment is
brought, in case the State Amendments omit the provision of consultation 3 with the Sessions Judge and selection of
members of the Bar with such experience and good character, such a procedure will offend Art. 14.
Eligibility Criteria for Public Prosecutor
Only such people are eligible to become a public prosecutor who is -
1. A citizen of India.
2. Have a degree in law.
3. Have worked for at least seven years, as an advocate.
4. of not less than 35 years of age and not more than 45 years of age at the time of application for the post.
5. There is a provision for relaxation in age limit for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes.
6. A panel of names of eligible candidates is created on the consultation of district magistrate and sessions judges. If
the name of a person is not available in the panel prepared under sub-section (3) by the District Magistrate and the
Session Judge then the State Government cannot appoint a person as a public prosecutor in any district.
7. It is necessary for the candidates to appear in the exam conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
for the post of the public prosecutor. An interview is also taken after this examination. After which the selected
candidates are notified by email.

Q4- Under what circumstances can a magistrate demand security for good behavior?
Answer. Section 108 – Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters
1. When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction any person who,
within or without such jurisdiction.-
i. either orally or in writing or in any other manner, intentionally disseminates or attempts to disseminate or
abets the dissemination of.-
a. any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124A or section 153A or section 153B or
section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
b. any matter concerning a Judge acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties which amounts
to criminal intimidation or defamation under the Indian Penal Code.
ii. makes, produces, publishes or keeps for sale, imports, exports, conveys, sells, lets to hire, distributes,
publicly exhibits or in any other manner puts in circulation any obscene matter such as is referred to in
section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, the Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to
 show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his good
behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
2. No proceeding shall be taken under this section against the editor, proprietor, printer or publisher of any
publication registered under, and edited, printed and published in conformity with, the rules laid down in the
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867), with reference to any matter contained in such
publication except by the order or under the authority of the State Government or some officer empowered
by the State Government in this behalf.
This again is a preventive section and not a punitive one. (Hari Telang v. Emperor, 1900) Under this Section,
security for good behavior can be demanded form a person who commits or is about to commit any of the
offences specified in the section.
Section 109 – Security for good behaviour from suspected persons – this section seeks to check and control the
persons who are likely to commit offences. There are two conditions precedent for the application of this section,
namely,
(1) that the person concerned must be taking precaution to conceal his presence; and
(2) that there is reason to believe that such person is taking precaution to conceal his presence with a view to
committing a cognizable offence.
Proceedings under this section cannot be initiated unless both these conditions are present. (Ganga Ram v. State,
1956)
The section is not meant to take security from persons suspected of having committed a particular cognizable
offence.
Section 110 – Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders – The main object of this section is to protect the
public against hardened and habitual criminals (In Re Rathinam Pillai K. S. AIR 1938).
When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who-
a. is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or
b. is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or
c. habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment of disposal of stolen property, or
d. habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the Commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction,
extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), or under section 489 A, section 489B, section 489 C or section 489 D of that Code, or
e. habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the Commission of, offences, involving a breach of the
peace, or
f. habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of-
i) any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely:-
a. the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940);
b. the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973);
c. the Employees’ Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (19 of 1952);
d. the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954);
e. the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955);
f. the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
g. the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962);
h. the Foreigners Act, 1946; or
ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of
adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or
g. is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community,
such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should
 not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three
years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

Q5- When police may arrest any person without a warrant? Also explain rights of an arrested person?
Answer. Arrest means the apprehension of a person by legal authority resulting in deprivation of his liberty. The Code
contemplates two types of arrests:
1. Arrest made in pursuance of a warrant issued by a Magistrate; and
2. Arrest made without such warrant but made in accordance with some legal provision permitting such arrest.
Cases in which arrest can be made without a warrant
Section 41 enumerates different categories of cases in which a police officer may arrest a person without an order
from a Magistrate and without a warrant. These include:
(a) who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or
credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned; or
(b) who has in his possession without lawful excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie on such person, any
implement of housebreaking; or
(c) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the State Government; or
(d) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may
reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing; or
(e) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from
lawful custody; or
(f) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or
(g) who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has
been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out
of India which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law
relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; or
(h) who being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule, relating to notification of residence or change of or
absence from residence; or
(i) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has been received from another police officer, provided
that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other causes for which the arrest is to be
made and it appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who
issued the requisition. (Section 41)
Rights of an Arrested Person
The powers given to police to facilitate the making of arrest are not absolute. These powers are subject to certain
restraints. These restraints are the rights of an arrested person. Thus, Rights of an arrested person are-
1.Right to know the grounds of Arrest
1.1) As per Section 50(1) of Cr.PC., every person who is being arrested by any police officer, without any warrant, is
entitled to know the full particulars of offence for which he is being arrested, and that the police officer is duty bound
to tell the accused such particulars and cannot deny it.
1.2) As per Section 55 of Cr.PC., when any person is being arrested by any police officer, who is deputed by a senior
police officer, then such subordinate officer shall before making such arrest, notify the person to be arrested the
substance of the written order given by the senior police officer specifying the offence or other cause for which the
arrest is to be made. If this provision is not complied with, then the arrest would be rendered illegal.
1.3) if the person is being arrested under a warrant, then as per Section 75 of Cr.PC, any person who is executing such
warrant must notify the person to be arrested, the particulars of such warrant, or even show such warrant if needed.
If the substance of the warrant is not notified, the arrest would be unlawful.
1.4) the Constitution of India also confers this right as one of the fundamental rights. Article 22(2) of the constitution
provides that “no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as soon as may be, of
the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by a legal practitioner of
his choice.”
2.Information regarding the Right to be released on Bail
Any person who is to be arrested without a warrant and is not accused of a non-bailable offense has to be informed
by the police officer that he is entitled to be released on bail on payment of the surety amount. This helps persons
who are arrested for bailable offenses and are not aware of their right to be released on bail.
3.Right to be taken before a Magistrate without Delay
Section 56 of Cr.PC. states that “Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate or officer in charge of police station- A
police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein
contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before
the officer in charge of a police station”.
Section 76 of Cr.PC. states that “Person arrested to be brought before Court without delay- The police officer or other
person executing a warrant of arrest shall (subject to the provisions of section 71 as to security) without unnecessary
delay bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to produce such person”.
Further, it has been mentioned in the proviso of Section 76 that such delay shall not exceed 24 hours in any case.
4.Rights at Trial
4.1) Right to a Fair Trial
The Constitution under Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law. The Code of Criminal Procedure
also provides that for a trial to be fair, it must be an open court trial. This provision is designed to ensure that
convictions are not obtained in secret. In some exceptional cases, the trial may be held in camera.
4.2) Right to a Speedy Trial by the Constitution of India
Though this right has not been specifically mentioned in the Constitution, however, the SC in the Hussainara Khatoon
v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98 has made it mandatory that the investigation in the trial must be conducted “as
expeditiously as possible.”
5.Right to Consult a Legal Practitioner
Section 50(3) of the Code also lays down that the person against whom proceedings are initiated has a right to be
defended by a pleader of his choice. This starts begins as soon as the person is arrested.
6.Rights of Free Legal Aid
The Supreme Court in the case of in Khatri(II) v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627 has held that the state is under a
constitutional obligation (implicit in Article 21) to provide free legal aid to an indigent accused person as is implicit in
Article 21 of the Constitution. This right does not come into picture only at the time of trial but exists at the time
when the accused is produced the first time before the magistrate, as also when remanded from time to time.
7.Right to be examined by a Medical Practitioner
Section 54 of Cr.PC. enumerates this right. It states that: “Examination of arrested person by medical practitioner at
the request of the arrested person- When a person who is arrested, whether on a charge or otherwise, alleges, at the
time when he is produced before a Magistrate or at any time during the period of his detention in custody that the
examination of his body will afford evidence which will disprove the commission by him of any offence or which will
establish the commission by any other person of any offence against his body, the Magistrate shall, if requested by
the arrested person so to do direct the examination of the body of such person by a registered medical practitioner
unless the Magistrate considers that the request is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the
ends of justice.”
8.Right to Silence
As per Article 20(3) of Constitution of India guarantees every person has been given a right against self-incrimination,
it states that any person who has been accused of any offense, shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself.
The same was again reiterated by a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani (1978) 2
SCC 424; wherein it was held that no one can forcibly extract statements from the accused and that the accused has
the right to keep silent during the course of interrogation (investigation).

Q6- What is the difference between investigation, inquiry and trial?

Answer. Inquiry - It means every inquiry other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or
Court. [Section 2(g)]. It carries the following three features:
1. the inquiry is different from a trial in criminal matters;
2. inquiry is wider than trial;
3. it stops when trial begins.
Inquiry and Investigation- The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) renders a separate and specific definition for both
the terms, however owing to their dictionary meaning the two words are o ften confused and used interchangeably.
INQUIRY INVESTIGATION
According to Section 2(h) of the CrPC investigation includes all
According to Section 2(g) of CrPC, Inquiry means
proceedings under the CrPC for collection of evidence
every inquiry other than trial conducted under the
conducted by a Police Officer or any person (other than a
CrPC by a Magistrate or Court.
Magistrate) authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf.
An investigation refers to the proceedings or steps taken by
Inquiry refers to proceedings conducted by a Court an authority like Police Officer. An investigation is not
or a Magistrate. conducted by Magistrate, it is conducted by a person
authorized in this behalf by the Magistrate.
An Inquiry primarily aims at determining the truth of Investigation mainly comprises the process of collection of
reported crime or falsity of facts if any. evidence.
Inquiry can either be Judicial or non-Judicial. Investigation cannot be a judicial process.
Investigation involved the following process:
– Reporting at the incident of crime
Proceedings under Chapter X (D) [maintenance of – Ascertaining facts and circumstances of the case
public order and tranquility] and Section 176 – Discovery and arrest of suspected persons
[inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death] is an – Collection of evidence
Inquiry. – Determining whether on the basis of facts and
evidence collected there is a case to put the accused on trial
or file a chargesheet.

Inquiry and Trial Distinguished

1. Trial presupposes the commission of an offence but an inquiry may include inquiries into maters other than
offences such as an inquiry concerning disputes as to immovable property etc. State v. Ambaram, AIR 1953
2. A trial is a judicial proceeding which necessarily ends into conviction or acquittal wheras it is not so in case of
an inquiry. Inquiries may have various endings according to the circumstances of the case.
 3. The term ‘Inquiry’ covers the proceedings upto the stage when they result in a discharge, whereas the term
‘trial’ represents proceedings from the point at which they may result in a conviction or acquittal.

Q7- Discuss the law and procedure of maintenance of wife, children and old parents in Code of Criminal Procedure?
Answer. Section 125 – Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents – This provision is included with a view
to serving the noble cause of social justice specially to protect women, children and old or infirm poor parents against
deprivation and starvation. The moral justification behind the provisions contained in this section is that it is the
fundamental obligation of a man to maintain his wife and children as also the old and infirm parents if they are
unable to maintain themselves.
The power to grant maintenance under Section 125 can be exercised only by the Judicial Magistrates of the first class
and the procedure or to be followed in maintenance proceedings is contained in Sections 126 to 128 of the Code.
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain.-
a. his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
b. his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
c. his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child
is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
d. his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a
monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as
such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make
such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor
female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly
allowance for the maintenance under this Sub-Section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for
the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding
which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from
time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of
the service of notice of the application to such person.”;
Explanation – For the purposes of this Chapter-
a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed
not to have attained his majority;
b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has
not remarried.
(2) “Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable
from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.”;
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for
every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and
may sentence such person, for the whole, or any port of each month’s allowance allowance for the maintenance or
the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be remaining unpaid after the execution of the
warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be
made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to
live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this
section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
Explanation – If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to
be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any
sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that
without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent,
the Magistrate shall cancel the order.
The Supreme Court in Nanak Chand v. Chand Kishore Agarwal AIR 1970, had ruled that the provisions contained in
Section 125 are applicable to all persons belonging to any religion and have no relationship with the personal law of
the parties.

Q8- What is Complaint? What procedure is to be followed by a Magistrate on receiving a complaint?

Answer. Complaint is a document which is sent or presented to the Magistrate with a view to his taking action and
not merely with a view to give information (In re Vadlamudi Kutumba Rao, 1961). A complaint, therefore, does not
include a police report. The complaint may be made orally or in writing. There is no specific format in which a
complaint should be made.
It is defined in Section 2(d) of CrPC as it means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to
his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but
does not include a police report.
Procedure to be followed by magistrates when a complaint is filed before them -
Section 200 of CRPC "Examination of complainant"
A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the
witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by
the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate
Section 200 provides that the Magistrate will examine the complainant on oath and at that stage, the Magistrate
makes up his mind after reading the complaint and going through the statement of the complainant which is reduced
into writing, whether he should issue process or not. It is at this stage that the Magistrate has to consider whether
examination of the complainant and the sworn statement of the complainant before him constitute sufficient
material for proceeding with the case.
Section 201 of CRPC "Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case"
If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall, -
(a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect;
(b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court.
Section 202 of CRPC "Postponement of issue of process"
“202. Postponement of issue of process.— (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is
authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall,
in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the
issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by
a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding:
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,—
(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or
(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any)
have been examined on oath under Section 200.”
It may be pointed out that the words “and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in
which he exercises his jurisdiction” were inserted in the above section by way of amendment by the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 23 June 2006. The note for the above amendment in the
Amending Bill read as follows:
In the case of Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638, the Supreme Court, held that:
“Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postponement of the issue of the process “in a case where the
accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction” and thereafter to either inquire
into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks
fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is as to whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place
beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not.
The Supreme Court referred to the above note for amendment in Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., observing that the aforesaid
amendment, in the opinion of the legislature, was essential as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far
off places in order to harass them, and then the Supreme Court held as under:
“The use of the expression “shall” prima facie makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the
Magistrate mandatory. The word “shall” is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context or
the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of the word “shall” in all circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in
mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent
innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of
the expression “shall” and the background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no
doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued
against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.”
Section 203 of CRPC "Dismissal of complaint"
If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the
inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.

Q9- What is anticipatory bail? What are the conditions which need to be fulfilled before the grant of anticipatory
bail?
Answer. Anticipatory Bail - The concept of Anticipatory Bail comes into place when the accused may rightfully fear
arrest in cases of cognizable offences. Bail is a legal relief that a person may be entitled to in order to get temporary
freedom until his case is disposed of. Depending on the gravity of the allegations, a person may be able to avoid
arrest altogether.
Anticipatory bail is literally applied for ‘in anticipation of arrest'. It is a direction to release a person on bail, issued
even before the person is arrested. If the accused has a reason to believe that he or she may be arrested on
accusation of having committed a non-bail able offence then he or she has the right to apply for an anticipatory bail in
the Sessions Court or High Court.
Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:
1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-
bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and
that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
 2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such
conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including:
i. a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required;
ii. a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer;
iii. a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
iv. such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted
under that section.
3. If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such
accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to
give bail, be shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a
warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity
with the direction of the Court under sub- section (1).
Conditions based on which the anticipatory bail is granted: After the amendment of 2005 in the criminal laws, it has
been made mandatory to hear Public Prosecutor in the case of Anticipatory Bail. If the sessions court rejected the
anticipatory bail then the application for anticipatory bail can be filed in High Court. The court can put certain
conditions and restrictions while granting anticipatory bail. These conditions and restrictions are as follows:
1. The nature and gravity of the accusation;
2. Reason to believe that, you may be arrested.
3. Such person shall make himself available for questioning by the police officer as and when required;
4. A condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;
5. Such person shall not leave India, without the previous permission of the court.
6. Filing of First Information Report (FIR) is not a pre-condition for filing for an anticipatory bail.
7. Such other condition as may be imposed under Sub-Section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted
under that section.

Q10- What is First information report? What are the rights of an informant in case of refusal by an officer in-charge
to register First Information Report?
Answer. First Information Report - The information regarding commission of an offense has to be entered in a book
available with the police. The information so recorded is called First Information Report i.e. F.I.R. It is an information
to the police station at first in point of time that an offense has been committed and on the basis of which the
investigation is commenced. Vague, cryptic and indefinite telephonic information cannot be treated as F.I.R. But it
need not be an encyclopedia containing every minute detail of the offense (Manoj v. State of Maharashtra (JT 1999
(2) SC 58).
The first information report means an information recorded by a police officer on duty given either by the aggrieved
person or any other person to the commission of an alleged offence. On the basis of first information report, the
police commences its investigation.
Section 154 Clause 1 of Cr. PC provided that - Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if
given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be
read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid
shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer
in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
Rights of an informant in case of refusal by an officer in-charge to register First Information Report
Clause 3 of Section 154 has provided that 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 subsection (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.
The use of the word ‘shall’ in Section 154 (1) of Cr. PC clearly shows that it is mandatory to register an F.I.R. if the
information given to the police discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
The Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & others reported in (2014), pointed out that if
content of the application under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. discloses commission of cognizable offence, registration of
first information report is mandatory, as per provision of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. It is not permissible for the police to
make a preliminary enquiry before registration of the case. He further contended that in case of cognizable offence,
the magistrate concerned is bound to direct the police to register and investigate the case.

Q11- What is Summary Trial? What procedure is to be followed by a magistrate in case of Summary Trial?
Answer. Summary trials are meant for speedy disposal of petty cases by abridged procedure. Only senior and
experienced judicial officers are empowered to try cases summarily under this section.
As per Section 260 (1) clause (i) offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term
exceeding two years try in a summary way. Other than this cases specified in clause (ii) to (ix) of sub-section (1) can be
tried summarily at the discretion of the Magistrate.
Commenting on the object of Section 260 of Cr. PC, the Supreme Court in V. K. Agrawal v. Vasant Raj Bhatia AIR1988
observed that procedure of summary trial has been laid down for speedy disposal of cases but it does not mean that
the procedure in grave criminal cases be dropped because they involve considerables delay.
Section 262 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Procedure for summary trials.
(1) In trials under this Chapter, the procedure specified in this Code for the trial of summons- ease shall be followed
except as hereinafter mentioned.
(2) No sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed in the case of any conviction
under this Chapter.
In summary trial, all cases shall be tried according to the procedure for the trial of summons case, whether the case is
a summons case or a warrant case.
Sub-section (2) provides that the Magistrate can pass sentence only upto a maximum term of three months in cases
tried summarily. A sentence exceeding this period fixed by the section is illegal (Nandlal Harishankar v. State of
Gujrat, AIR1969)
In every summary the following particulars should be recorded according to Section 263 of CrPC:
1. Serial number of case
2. The date on which the offence was committed.
3. The date on which the complaint was made.
4. The name of parents.
5. The name and address of the accused.
6. The offence and the value of the property that was stolen.
7. The plea of the accused and if he has been examined then such examination as well.
8. The findings of the Magistrate.
9. The sentence or the final order of the Magistrate.
10. The date on which the legal proceedings come to an end.

Submitted By
Nakul Dalakoti