ਹੋਰ ਪ੍ਰਾਵਧਾਨ – Cr.P.C.

0
656

ਹੋਰ ਫੁਟਕਲ ਪ੍ਰਾਵਧਾਨ (Other miscellaneous provisions)

ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਦੀ ਤਫ਼ਤੀਸ਼ ਅਤੇ ਸੁਣਵਾਈ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਕਈ ਹੋਰ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਪੜਾਅ ਵੀ ਆਉਂਦੇ ਹਨ।

  1. ਧਾਰਾ 91 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਦਸਤਾਵੇਜ਼ ਨੂੰ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸੰਮਨ): ਜੇ ਦੀਵਾਨੀ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਕੋਲ ਕਿਸੇ ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੋਈ ਅਜਿਹਾ ਦਸਤਾਵੇਜ਼ ਪੇਸ਼ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੋਵੇ ਜਿਸਦੇ ਜਾਅਲੀ ਹੋਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਮੁਕੱਦਮਾ ਦਰਜ ਹੋਵੇ ਅਤੇ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਉਹ ਦਸਤਾਵੇਜ਼ ਫੋਰੰਸਿਕ ਸਾਇੰਸ ਲੈਬੋਰਟਰੀ ਤੋਂ ਰਾਏ ਲੈਣ ਲਈ ਲੋੜੀਂਦਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਨੂੰ ਉਹ ਦਸਤਾਵੇਜ਼ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਹਵਾਲੇ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case : Bori Lal v/s State of Rajasthan 2006, Cri.L.J. 1715 (Rajasthan – HC)

Para “5. Considering the facts that it is alleged that the agreement is a forged one, it is imperative that a F.S.L. report be sought about its genuineness as in the absence of the FSL report the prosecution case would be weakened. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of R. 181 of the General Rules (Civil) 1986 we direct the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur to handover the original copy of the agreement which has been submitted in Civil Suit No. 41/95 to the police within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

2. ਧਾਰਾ 172 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਤਫਤੀਸ਼ੀ ਅਫਸਰ ਦਾ ਬਿਆਨ): ਤਫਤੀਸ਼ੀ ਅਫਸਰ ਦੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਨਾ ਹੋ ਸਕਣ ਨਾਲ ਫੌਜਦਾਰੀ ਮੁਕੱਦਮਾ ਰੱਦ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦਾ।

Case : Behari Prasad etc. v/s State of Bihar, 1996 Cri.L.J.1653 (SC)

Para “22. ….. Hence, for non-examination of Investigating Officer, the prosecution case should not fail. We may also indicate here that it will not be correct to contend that if an Investigating Officer is not examined in a case, such case should fail on the ground that the accused were deprived of the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to bring out contradictions in their statements before the police. A case of prejudice likely to be suffered by an accused must depend on the facts of the case and no universal straight jacket formula should be laid down that non-examination of Investigating Officer per se vitiates a criminal trial.”

3. ਧਾਰਾ 174 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਮ੍ਰਿਤਯੂ ਪੜਤਾਲ (inquest report): ਮ੍ਰਿਤਯੂ ਪੜਤਾਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਹਮਲਾਵਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਦਰਜ ਨਾ ਹੋਣਾ ਕੇਵਲ ਇੱਕ ਬੇਨੇਮੀ ਹੈ।

Case (i) : Ram Sanjivan Singh & others v/s State of Bihar, 1996 Cri.L.J. 2528 (SC)

 Para “19.  It was then submitted that in the inquest report the names of the assailants were not shown.  It is obvious that there was no column in inquest report about the names of the assailants and there was no occasion for any one to mention the names of the assailants in the inquest report. …..”

 Case (ii) : Shaikh Ayub v/s State of Maharashtra, 1998 Cri.L.J. 1656 (SC)

 Para “5. There is no requirement of law or any rule that an inquest Panchnama should contain name of the accused.”

4. ਧਾਰਾ 229 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਦੋਸ਼ ਕਬੂਲ ਕਰਨਾ): ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਆਪਣਾ ਦੋਸ਼, ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਦੀ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਸਟੇਜ ਉੱਪਰ ਕਬੂਲ ਕਰ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case : Ram Kishun v/s State of U.P., 1996 Cri.L.J.440 (Allahabad – HC)

Para “12. ….. There is no reason to restrict the applicability of Section 229 Cr. P.C. to a Particular date or occasion but the purport of section is obvious that plea of guilt can be advanced by an accused at any stage of the trial after framing charge.…..”

5. ਧਾਰਾ 232 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਪ੍ਰਾਸੀਕਿਊਸ਼ਨ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਬੰਦ ਕਰਕੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਬਰੀ ਕਰਨਾ): ਜੇ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਜ਼ਖ਼ਮੀ ਹੋਇਆ ਗਵਾਹ ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ ਵਿੱਚ ਗਏ ਹੋਣ ਕਾਰਨ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲਈ ਪੇਸ਼ ਨਾ ਹੋ ਸਕਿਆ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਪ੍ਰਾਸੀਕਿਊਸ਼ਨ ਦੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਨੂੰ ਬੰਦ ਕਰਕੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਬਰੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੀ।

Case : State of Gujarat v/s Nareshbhai Haribhai Tandel 1997 Cri.L.J.2783 (Gujrat – HC  DB)

Para “8.  Courts are supposed to decide cases on evidence as far as possible and not to dispose of the same just to get rid of. If criminal cases are to be disposed of in the manner in which it has been done in the instant case, people are bound to gradually lose their faith in the administration of justice, and as a result may, ultimately take law in their hands and by extra-judicial methods satisfy their urges for justice in the streets, on the strength of their respective mights.”

6. ਧਾਰਾ 273 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲਿਖਣਾ): ਪਰਿਭਾਸ਼ਿਕ ਸ਼ਬਦ ‘ਹਾਜ਼ਰ’ ਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸਰੀਰਿਕ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਗੋਂ ਚਿੰਨਾਤਮਿਕ (constructive) ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਹੈ।

Case : State of Maharashtra v/s Dr. Praful B. Desai 2003 Cri.L.J.2033 (SC)

 Para “12. ….. Thus Section 273 provides for dispensation from personal attendance. In such cases evidence can be recorded in the presence of the pleader. The presence of the pleader is thus deemed to be presence of the accused. Thus Section 273 contemplates constructive presence. This shows that actual physical presence is not a must. This indicates that the term “presence”, as used in this Section, is not used in the sense of actual physical presence. A plain reading of Section 273 does not support the restrictive meaning sought to be placed by the respondent on the word “presence”……”

7. ਧਾਰਾ 273 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲਿਖਣਾ): ਗਵਾਹੀ ਵੀਡੀਓ ਕਾਨਫਰੰਸਿਗ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਵੀ ਲਿਖੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case : State of Maharashtra v/s Dr. Praful B. Desai 2003 Cri.L.J.2033

Para “19. ….. Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching one can see, hear and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video conferencing both parties are in presence of each other. The submissions of respondents counsel are akin to an argument that a person seeing through binoculars or telescope is not actually seeing what is happening. It is akin to submitting that a person seen through binoculars or telescope is not in the “presence” of the person observing. Thus it is clear that so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video conferencing that evidence is being recorded in the “presence” of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of Section 273, Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per “procedure established by law”. ….”

8. ਧਾਰਾ 294 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਦਸਤਾਵੇਜ਼ ਨੂੰ ਸਹੀ ਮੰਨਣਾ): ਜੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਪੋਸਟਮਾਰਟਮ ਰਿਪੋਰਟ ਜਾਂ ਇੰਨਜਰੀ ਰਿਪੋਰਟ ਨੂੰ ਸਹੀ ਮੰਨ ਲਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੋਵੇ ਅਤੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਡਾਕਟਰ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲਈ ਉਪਲੱਬਧ ਨਾ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਉਸ ਰਿਪੋਰਟ ਨੂੰ ਫੈਸਲੇ ਲਈ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case : Sadre Alam Mulic v/s State, 1997 Cri.L.J.2441 (Calcutta – HC, DB)

Para “21. ….. Therefore, with the consent of the defence, when the post-mortem report or injury report is admitted into evidence the purpose is not ornamentation of the record, but to use the contents of those reports into evidence without waiting indefinitely for the appearance of the doctor concerned before the ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the views taken by the Allahabad High Court can hardly be accepted in this connection. It is proper to mention that a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in its decision in the case of Saddique v. State of U.P. reported in 1981 Cr. L.J. 379 was pleased to discuss this point at length and hold that post-mortem report or injury report becomes substantive evidence where genuineness of such report is not disputed by the defence and by this decision of the Full Bench the decision of the Lucknow Bench in the case of Jagdeo Singh v. State reported in 1979 Cr. LJ 236 (All) has been overruled.”

9. ਧਾਰਾ 301, 302 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਪੀੜਿਤ ਦੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ): ਪੀੜਿਤ ਧਿਰ ਨੂੰ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਕੋਲ ਆਪਣਾ ਪੱਖ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਹੈ।

Case : M/s J. K. International V/s State, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi 2001 Cri.L.J.1264 (SC)

Para “9. The scheme envisaged in the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) indicates that a person who is aggrieved by the offence committed, is not altogether wiped out from the scenario of the trial merely because the investigation was taken over by the police and the charge-sheet was laid by them. Even the fact that the Court had taken cognizance of the offence is not sufficient to debar him from reaching the Court for ventilating his grievance. Even in the Sessions Court, where the Public Prosecutor is the only authority empowered to conduct the prosecution as per Section 225 of the Code, a private person who is aggrieved by the offence involved in the case is not altogether debarred from participating in the trial.

10. ਧਾਰਾ 301, 302 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਪੀੜਿਤ ਦੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ): ਮੈਜਿਸਟ੍ਰੇਟ ਦੀ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਸ਼ਿਕਾਇਤਕਰਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਨਿੱਜੀ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਕੇਸ ਦੀ ਪੈਰਵਾਈ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਹੈ।

Case : M/s J. K. International V/s State, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi 2001 Cri.L.J.1264 (SC)

Para 12”. ….. It further amplifies the position that if a private person is aggrieved by the offence committed against him or against any one in whom he is interested he can approach the Magistrate and seek permission to conduct the prosecution by himself..

11. ਧਾਰਾ 340 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਪੜਤਾਲ): ਪੜਤਾਲ ਦੀ ਸੁਣਵਾਈ ਸਮੇਂ ਸੰਭਾਵੀ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣਾ ਪੱਖ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

Case : Pritish v/s State of Maharashtra, 2002 Cri.L.J. 548 (SC – FB)

Para “15. Once the prosecution proceedings commence the person against whom the accusation is made has a legal right to be heard. Such a legal protection is incorporated in the scheme of the Code. Principles of natural justice would not be hampered by not hearing the person concerned at the stage of deciding whether such person should be proceeded against or not.”

12. ਧਾਰਾ 378 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਬਰੀ ਹੋਣ ਵਿਰੁੱਧ ਅਪੀਲ): ਅਜਿਹੀ ਅਪੀਲ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਗੈਰ-ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਵੀ ਸੁਣੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case : State of Gujarat v/s Narubhai Amrabhai Chunara Vaghri 1997 Cri.L.J. 3479 (Gujrat – HC)

Para “4. ….. Now once the status of the respondent as an accused person stands revived and when even in absence of the accused, as per the provisions contained in Section 299 of the Code, the evidence can be recorded by the trial Court in his absence by examining the witnesses, the appellate Court can certainly hear and decide the appeal in his absence more particularly when the provisions contained in Section 82 of the Code are duly complied with and we are further satisfied on the basis of the affidavit filed by the concerned police officer that the accused is absconding.”

13. ਧਾਰਾ 391 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਅਪੀਲ ਸੁਣ ਰਹੀ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਹੋਰ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲੈਣਾ): ਅਪੀਲ ਸੁਣ ਰਹੀ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਨੂੰ ਹੋਰ ਗਵਾਹੀ (additional evidence) ਲੈਣ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਹੈ। ਪਰ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਨੂੰ ਇਸ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਦੀ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਕੇਵਲ ਸਮਾਜ, ਲੋਕ ਹਿਤ ਜਾਂ ਘੋਰ ਅਨਿਆਏ ਨੂੰ ਨਾ ਪੂਰਾ ਹੋਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਦੀ ਪੂਰਤੀ ਲਈ ਹੀ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case : Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v/s State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (2) RCR (Cri.) 692 (SC)

 Para  “77.     xxxxxx

  1.      Section 391 of the Code is another salutary provision which clothes the Courts with the power of effectively decide an appeal. Though Section 386 envisages the normal and ordinary manner and method of disposal of an appeal, yet it does not and cannot be said to exhaustively enumerate the modes by which alone the Court can deal with an appeal.

   Section 391 is one such exception to the ordinary rule and if the appellate Court considers  additional evidence to be necessary, the provisions in Section 386 and Section 391 have to be harmoniously considered to enable the appeal to be considered and disposed of also in the light of the additional evidence as well. For this purpose it is open to the appellate Court to call for further evidence before the appeal is disposed of.

14. ਧਾਰਾ 311 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਲਈ ਬੁਲਾਉਣਾ): ਜੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਗਵਾਹ ਨੇ, ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਦੀ ਸੁਣਵਾਈ ਕਰ ਰਹੀ ਅਦਾਲਤ (trial court) ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜ ਕਰਾਏ ਬਿਆਨ ਤੋਂ ਉਲਟ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਦੇਣ ਲਈ, ਅਪੀਲ ਸੁਣ ਰਹੀ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਅਪੀਲ ਸੁਣ ਰਹੀ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਉਸ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case : Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v/s State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (2) RCR (Cri.) 692

 Para  “77 xxxxx

  1. It is not that in every case where the witness who had given evidence before Court wants to change his mind and is prepared to speak differently, that the Court concerned should readily accede to such request by lending its assistance. If the witness who deposed one way earlier comes before the appellate Court with a prayer that he is prepared to give evidence which is materially different from what he has given earlier at the trial with the reasons for the earlier lapse, the Court can consider the genuineness of the prayer in the context as to whether the party concerned had a fair opportunity to speak the truth earlier and in an appropriate case accept it. It is not that the power is to be exercised in a routine manner, but being an exception to the ordinary rule of disposal of appeal on the basis of records received in exceptional cases or extraordinary situation the Court can neither feel powerless nor abdicate its duty to arrive at the truth and satisfy the ends of justice. The Court can certainly be guided by the metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, and in a case which has telltale imprint of reasonableness and genuineness in the prayer, the same has to be accepted, at least to consider the worth, credibility and the acceptability of the same on merits of the material sought to be brought in.”

15. ਧਾਰਾ 161, 162 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਪੁੱਛ-ਗਿੱਛ): ਪੁਲਿਸ ਲਈ ਹਰ ਗਵਾਹ ਦਾ ਬਿਆਨ ਲਿਖਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

Case : Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v/s State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (2) RCR (Cri.) 692

Para “61. ….. Section 162 Cr.P.C. is very clear that it is not mandatory for the police to record every statement. In other words, law contemplates a situation where there might be witnesses who depose in Court but whose previous statements have not been recorded.”

16. ਧਾਰਾ 161, 162 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ., (ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਪੁੱਛ-ਗਿੱਛ): ਜੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਗਵਾਹ ਦਾ ਧਾਰਾ 161 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ. ਅਧੀਨ ਲਿਖੇ ਗਏ ਬਿਆਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਦੇਰੀ ਹੋ ਗਈ ਹੋਵੇ ਅਤੇ ਉਸ ਦੇਰੀ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਸਪੱਸ਼ਟ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਗਏ ਹੋਣ ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਦੇਰੀ ਦਾ ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਉੱਪਰ ਬੁਰਾ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈਂਦਾ।

Case : Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v/s State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (2) RCR (Cri.) 692

Para “63. ….. this Court held that mere delay in examination of the witnesses for a few days cannot, in all cases, be termed to be fatal so far as the prosecution is concerned. There may be several reasons. When the delay is explained, whatever be the length of the delay, the Court can act on the testimony of the witness if it is found to be cogent and credible. In Prithvi vs. Mam Raj , (2004) 13 SCC 279, it was held that delay in recording the statement of the witness can occur due to various reasons and can have several explanations and that it is for the Court to assess the explanation and, if satisfied, accept the statement of the witness. The same principle has been reiterated in Ganeshlal vs. State of Mahrashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106.”

 

 

SHARE

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY