- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Balaji Vasantrao Suwarnkar v. State Of Maharashtra .
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
A complaint was lodged at Udgir Police Station on 18-10-1990 alleging kidnapping and rape of a minor daughter. Crime No. 115/1990 was registered and the petitioner was arrested on 28-10-1990 and remained in custody thereafter. A charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, on 25-01-1991, but the court's Criminal section returned it on the ground that a copy of a document (the Chemical Analyser's report) was not attached. The charge-sheet was re-submitted on 29-01-1991 with the missing document. The petitioner applied for bail on the ground that the investigation was not completed within the statutory limitation under section 167(2) CrPC and that the effective date of completion was 29-01-1991 (outside the prescribed period). The learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Latur, rejected the bail application on 11-03-1991. The petitioner moved the present criminal application challenging that rejection and asserting entitlement to bail.
Legal Issues Presented
- When a charge-sheet (report under section 173 CrPC) is first submitted to the court but returned by court officials as incomplete and later re-submitted after rectifying the alleged defect, which date constitutes the date of completion of investigation for the purpose of section 167(2) CrPC — the date of the first filing or the subsequent filing?
- Whether refusal by court officials to accept a charge-sheet on account of omission of documents (e.g., Chemical Analyser's report) affects the date of completion of investigation and the accused’s entitlement to bail under section 167(2) CrPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's (Petitioner's) Arguments
- The report filed on 25-01-1991 was an interim or incomplete submission and only the final submission (29-01-1991) should count as completion of investigation; therefore the investigation was completed beyond the statutory period and the petitioner is entitled to bail under section 167(2) CrPC.
- The prosecution is duty-bound to supply copies of all documents it intends to rely upon at trial along with the charge-sheet; absence of such documents means the earlier filing cannot be treated as a proper charge-sheet indicating completion of investigation.
- Relied on a Division Bench decision: State of Maharashtra v. Eknath s/o Laxman Talekar (1977, Unreported, Bom.) for the proposition that a Magistrate has no power to authorize detention beyond the statutory limitation for completion of investigation.
- Also relied on Bandi Kotayya v. State (AIR 1966 AP 377) to argue that cognizance (and thus effect) occurs after the final/further charge-sheet and that the final submission should mark the end of investigation.
- Argued that if the first charge-sheet was withdrawn from the court file, nothing remained on the file on 25-01-1991 and so the effective filing date is 29-01-1991.
Respondent's (State's) Arguments
- The prosecution in fact filed the charge-sheet on 25-01-1991; if court officials refused to accept it at that time for want of a document, the prosecution cannot be blamed and the date of completion of investigation is the earlier date (25-01-1991).
- Impliedly, the return of the charge-sheet by court staff for a missing document does not convert the earlier filing into a non-event vis-à-vis completion of investigation under section 167.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Eknath s/o Laxman Talekar, 1977, Unreported (Bom.) 211 | Proposition relied upon by petitioner that a Magistrate has no power to authorize detention beyond the statutory time-limit for completion of investigation. | The court recorded that the petitioner relied on this decision, but the court did not accept the petitioner's contention that the later filing (29-01-1991) alone should be treated as completion of investigation. The decision was noted but did not determine the present issue in favour of the petitioner. |
| R.K. Dalmia v. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821 | Expresses that a charge-sheet is not a complete or exhaustive thesis of the prosecution case and cites requirements of section 173(1)(a) CrPC regarding contents of the police report. | The court relied on this Supreme Court observation to support the view that a charge-sheet need not be exhaustive to amount to a report under section 173 and that filing of the report indicates completion of investigation even if some supporting documents are not yet produced. |
| Pulandar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1979 Cri LJ NOC 155 (Madh. Pra.) | Holds that a challan/charge-sheet filed without the report of a serologist or Chemical Analyser is not thereby rendered incomplete. | The court cited this decision to reinforce the proposition that omission of certain reports does not make a charge-sheet incomplete for the purposes of marking completion of investigation. |
| Deendayal Krishanchand v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cri LJ 1583 | Holds that criminal courts or their officers should not refuse to accept a charge-sheet for omission of production of the accused or other procedural lacunae; courts should accept the charge-sheet and note omissions if necessary; also references section 468 CrPC regarding limitation for taking cognizance. | The court relied on this authority to underline that refusal by court staff to accept a charge-sheet on such grounds is unjustified and that the court should accept the police report, making only appropriate endorsements as needed. |
| Bandi Kotayya v. State (S.H.O. Nandigama), AIR 1966 AP 377 | Dealt with distinction between preliminary/personal acts of the Magistrate and a subsequent final charge-sheet, holding that cognizance in that case was taken after the final/further charge-sheet was filed. | The court observed that this case concerned the point at which the Magistrate took cognizance and is therefore of limited assistance on when investigation "ends" for section 167 purposes. The court distinguished it and rejected the petitioner's attempt to rely on it to show that only the subsequent filing marked completion of investigation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded by reference to the statutory scheme and the content of the impugned filings. Key points of the court's reasoning, stated in the opinion, are:
- Statutory definition and timing: The court noted that "investigation" as defined by section 2(h) CrPC includes all proceedings for collection of evidence by the police and that investigation comes to an end as soon as a report under section 173 is filed. Thus the date of filing of the report under section 173 is the critical date for the purpose of section 167(2).
- Substance over form: The court relied on the Supreme Court's observation in R.K. Dalmia that a charge-sheet is not intended to be a complete or exhaustive thesis of the prosecution case and that section 173 requires certain basic information (names of parties, nature of information, persons acquainted with the case, etc.). If a document omitted at the time of first filing does not affect those essentials, the filing still constitutes a report under section 173.
- Accepting late production of documents: The court held that even if some documents (like the Chemical Analyser's report) were not filed along with the initial charge-sheet, the prosecution is not precluded from producing them later, provided there is good reason and the accused is given sufficient opportunity to meet the material. Therefore the initial filing cannot be treated as ineffective merely because a supplementary report was later supplied.
- Improper refusal to accept a charge-sheet: The court found it was improper for the court staff to refuse to accept the charge-sheet solely because the Chemical Analyser's report was missing. The court emphasized that refusal to accept on such grounds could create a dispute about when the investigation ended and that trivial omissions should not defeat the filing.
- Essential contents per section 173(2): The court explained that a court would be justified in refusing to accept a charge-sheet only where it does not contain the basic particulars required by section 173(2) — e.g., names, nature of information, names of witnesses, opinion of the investigating officer on which offence is committed and by whom, arrest and forwarding details. If these essentials are present, the filing fulfills the requirement of report of completion of investigation.
- Distinguishing cognizance: The court rejected the submission that cognizance being taken only after a "final" charge-sheet controls the date of completion under section 167. The court observed that section 167 prescribes limitation for completion of investigation, not for when the court takes cognizance; decisions about cognizance (as in Bandi Kotayya) do not alter the statutory mechanics of when investigation is deemed complete.
- Application to facts: Applying the above principles, the court concluded that the charge-sheet filed on 25-01-1991 already constituted a report under section 173 despite the omission of the Chemical Analyser's report and that the return by court staff was an improper procedural objection. Consequently, the investigation was complete on 25-01-1991 for the purposes of section 167.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Criminal Application is rejected. The rule is discharged. (Application dismissed.)
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The petitioner's contention that completion of investigation occurred only on 29-01-1991 (and that he was therefore entitled to bail under section 167(2) CrPC) was rejected. The court treated the charge-sheet filed on 25-01-1991 as the report under section 173 and therefore as marking the completion of investigation for statutory purposes; the petitioner's application for relief was denied.
- No broader or novel precedent announced: The court applied existing statutory provisions and prior authorities to resolve the issue. The opinion does not purport to lay down a new general rule beyond the interpretation that an otherwise compliant filing under section 173 should not be rejected for trivial omissions and that the date of the initial filing will mark completion of investigation when the essentials required by section 173(2) are present.
Application dismissed.
This summary has been prepared strictly from the content of the provided opinion. No information has been added beyond what appears in the text of the opinion.
1. When the report about completion of investigation of a cognizable offence popularly known as charge-sheet is filed by investigating agency and Court officials refuse to accept it on the ground that it is incomplete and therefore, it is again submitted in the Court after some days and after rectifying alleged defect, what would be the date of completion of investigation, the first one or date of subsequent filing of charge-sheet? Precisely this is the question for consideration in this criminal application. This question has assumed importance because the first date of filing charge-sheet is within statutory limitation prescribed for completion of investigation and second date is outside the said limitation, and thus have a bearing on the question of right to bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. A complaint was lodged at Udgir Police Station on 18-10-1990 by father alleging that his minor daughter has been kidnapped by the petitioner with intent to compel her illicit intercourse and is also raped by him. Crime No. 115/1990 was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested on 28-10-1990. Since then, he is in custody. A charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, on 25-1-1991 but it was returned by the officer of the Court objecting that copy of some document was not accompanied by the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was resubmitted in the Court on 29-1-1991 along with the copy asked by the Court. Accused-petitioner had submitted an application for bail on the ground that the investigation was not completed within the statutory limitation and the charge-sheet was properly filed on 29-1-1991 i.e beyond the limitation and, therefore, petitioner be released on bail. Learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Latur, by his judgment and order dated 11-3-1991 was pleased to reject this application. Similar prayer is now being made before this court.
3. Shri S.S Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, submits that there is nothing like an interim charge-sheet and only the final submission of the charge-sheet will have to be taken as completion of investigation which was done on 29th of January, 1991 and, therefore, accused-petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail by virtue of provisions of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In support of his contention Shri Choudhari relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in this case of State of Maharashtra v. Eknath s/o Laxman Talekar, 1977, Unreported Cases Reporter (Bom.) 211, which holds that Magistrate has no power to authorise detention of the accused persons in custody for a period exceeding the statutory limitation for completion of investigation. Shri Choudhari, therefore, submits that since the charge-sheet was filed on 29th day of January, 1991 being 91st day after the arrest of the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, irrespective of the fact that the charge-sheet was filed subsequent to the statutory limitation.
4. As against this, Shri S.K Barlota, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent-State, submitted that the charge-sheet was in fact filed on 25th of January, 1991 and if the officials of the Court had not accepted it, prosecution cannot be blamed.
5. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 so far as is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced below:—
“167(1). Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that—
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,—
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence,
and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that chapter.
………………”
6. This provision contains a necessary safeguard against prolonged detention of the persons accused of cognizable offences and puts a limitation on such detention during investigation. Investigation has been defined by section 2(h) of the Code to include all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. Investigation comes to an end as soon as a report under section 173 is filed. This report may be either in the form of what is popularly known as charge-sheet or a final report under section 169. In the instant case, when the charge-sheet was filed in the Court on 25th January, 1991 Chemical Analyser's report was not accompanying the charge-sheet and, therefore, the person in-charge of the Criminal section returned the charge-sheet refusing it to be accepted and it was again filed on 29th January, 1991 along with the Chemical Analyser's report. According to Shri Choudhari, prosecution is duty bound to give copies of all the documents and statements on which it wishes to rely during the trial along with the charge-sheet and if something was not supplied along with the charge-sheet, it cannot be said to be charge-sheet at all and, therefore, filing of the charge-sheet indicating completion of the investigation did take place only on 29th January, 1991 and at no time before that. I am afraid, that the contention of Shri Choudhari is not well founded.
7. Supreme Court in R.K Dalmia v. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821 (V 49 C 252) has ovserved thus:
“The charge-sheet is hardly a complete or accurate thesis of the prosecution case. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, requires the officer in charge of the police station to forward to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, the report in the prescribed form setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information, and the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case.”
8. Essentials of a valid report under sub-section (2) of section 173 have been listed in the said sub-section. Even if any document is not filed along with the charge-sheet, prosecution, if able to show good reason, is not precluded from submitting that document at a later stage and if sufficient opportunity is given to the accused, the document can well be accepted. Therefore, merely because the chemical analyser's report was not there, it was totally improper on the part of the Court to refuse to accept the charge-sheet. Since the Legislature has now put a specific time limit for the completion of the investigation, no charge-sheet or a report about completion of the investigation should be refused to be accepted on grounds like that a copy of the Chemical Analyser's report is not accompanying or even the accused is not sent along with the charge-sheet. Learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Pulandar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1979 Cri LJ NOC 155 (Madh. Pra.) had considered the question whether the challan filed without copy of report of serologist and Chemical Analyser would be an incomplete challan or charge-sheet, and was pleased to negative this contention. Whether acceptance of the charge-sheet should be refused on any alleged defect in the said charge-sheet was also considered by the Gujarat High Court, in the case of Deendayal Krishanchand v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cri LJ 1583. Learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court was pleased to observe as follows:—
“I must say at this stage that the refusal by criminal Courts either through the learned Magistrate or through their office staff to accept the charge-sheet without production of the accused persons is not justified by any provision of law. Therefore, it should be impressed upon all the Courts that they should accept the charge-sheet whenever it is produced by the police with any endorsement to be made on the charge-sheet by the staff or the Magistrate pertaining to any omission or requirement in the charge-sheet. But when the police submit the charge-sheet, it is the duty of the Court to accept it especially in view of the provisions of section 468 of the Code which creates a limitation of taking cognizance of offence.”
9. Section 468 is one of the considerations which weighed in the mind of learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court. But consideration of provisions of section 167 also emphasizes duty of the Court to accept the charge-sheet as is submitted. If a charge-sheet is refused on an untenable ground and is returned, it would give rise to the dispute about the determination of the point of time at which the investigation has ended. A report under section 173 is an intimation to the Court about the completion of the investigation and mere fact that some document is not produced before the Court or the accused is not produced along with the charge-sheet or the copies submitted are not legible or any other reason like this, would be hardly a justification for refusing the acceptance of the charge-sheet. Court would be justified in refusing to accept the charge-sheet only if the charge-sheet does not give the name of the parties, nature of the information, names of the persons who appeared to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, opinion of the Investigating Officer stating that which of the offence is committed and by whom, whether the accused has been arrested and whether he is released on bond with or without sureties and whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. If all this information as is required by section 173(2) is given in the charge-sheet, it is a proper report about completion of the enquiry and as soon as it is filed in the Court, requirement as per section 167 is fulfilled by the prosecution.
10. Shri Choudhari further submitted that even assuming that the first charge-sheet was complete, it was withdrawn from the Court and was again filed, therefore, nothing remained on the Court file on 25th of January, 1991 and hence filing of the charge-sheet has taken place only on 29th of January, 1991 for the purpose of the Court record. Right of an accused person to get himself released on furnishing security if the investigation is not completed within the period prescribed by section 167 is available to him only if the investigation is not completed and the report about such completion is not submitted to the Court. Once it is submitted, what endorsement the Court has made on it, whether the cognisance is directly taken or some lacunas are directed to be removed by the Court before taking cognizance, is not material.
11. Shri Choudhari further relied on a judgment of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Bandi Kotayya v. State, (S.H.O Nandigama), AIR 1966 AP 377 (V 53 C 115). In this case, preliminary charge-sheet was presented to the Magistrate and he had taken the case on file, given it a number for statistical purpose and remitted the accused produced before him and issued non-bailable warrant in respect of the absconding accused. Subsequent to this, a final charge-sheet came to be filed and the Division Bench ruled that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence after the subsequent and final charge-sheet and in law that was report under section 173(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying on this judgment, Shri Choudhari submits that if the cognizance can be taken only after the submission of the final charge-sheet i.e the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that would be point at which the investigation is terminated. Point for consideration of the learned Judges of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court was what can be termed to be taking cognizance and considering the facts in that case, a conclusion was arrived at that the cognizance is taken after the filing of the subsequent charge-sheet. This judgment is hardly of any help when we consider the question at what point the investigation ends. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not lay down that the Magistrate shall take cognizance of the offence within 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, and if no cognizance is so taken within that period then accused shall be entitled for release on bail. Limitation is provided for completion of the investigation and not for taking cognizance by the Court. Therefore, this contention raised by Shri Choudhari will have to be repelled. This Criminal Application mainly contends that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail for non-completion of investigation within the limitation prescribed. This contention is rejected. Shri Choudhari further submits that even on merits, petitioner should be released on bail. No material is provided in this Criminal Application for consideration of the case on merits. Petitioner is always at liberty to file an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge who would be in a position to go into the record which will be readily available to him and consider for prayer for bail in the light of that record.
12. In the result, Criminal Application is rejected. Rule is discharged.
Application dismissed.
Alert