Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Court dealt with an important question of law in criminal proceedings in a case, where the process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC was issued against the accused. While the statement of process server under Section 82 CrPC was recorded by the CMM, the process couldn’t be completed under Section 83 for want of any property in the name of petitioner. Section 82 deals with proclaiming a person as proclaimed offender if he/she is absconding while Section 83 provides for attachment of the property of the person.

In the meanwhile before the petitioner could be declared as proclaimed offender, Investigation Officer filed a supplementary charge-sheet dated 31.08.2013 under Sections 384/387/419/420/467/468/471/474/174A/506/120B/34 IPC. Thereafter, his anticipatory bail application was accepted by Add. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer had no power to add Section 174-A IPC in the supplementary charge-sheet prior to declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender by the trial court. The petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender after the supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him including the charge of Section 174-A IPC which provides for imprisonment of a person for non-appearance in response to a proclamation under Section 82  CrPC.

So, in the present petition the vital question before the Court was whether Section 174-A IPC could be added by the Investigating Officer before declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. To this question, the Court responded in negation. The Court held that the IO had added the charge of Section 174-A IPC much before the date when the order of his proclamation as proclaimed offender had been issued and said that he had no power to do so. Justice I.S. Mehta observed that the bare reading of the section was making it amply clear that proceeding under Section 174-A could only be started only after the person is declared as proclaimed offender and thus, allowed the petition. [Deepak Kumar@ Deepak Saha v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6920, decided on 07.02.2017]

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the hapless and helpless widow of Rajdev Ranjan, a senior reporter of a news daily, i.e., ‘Dainik Hindustan’, who was brutally murdered on 13.05.2016 by a group of persons, the Court, after considering the status report filed by the CBI, directed the CBI to complete the investigation within 3 months.

The Court also asked the Sessions Judge, Siwan (Town), Bihar, to submit a report along with the order sheet on the next date of hearing i.e. 28.11.2016, with regard to the status of Mohammad Kaif and Mohammad Javed as regards they are proclaimed offenders or whether there was issue of non-bailable warrants of arrest from the court or any other aspect relating to the case concerned.

The Court, by order dated 23.09.2016, had directed that police protection be given to the petition as people holding party position and position in the political executive were alleged to be involved in the case as Mohammad Kaif, one of the accused, was spotted with Shahabuddin, Vice President, Rashtriya Janta Dal and Tej Pratap Yadav, Health Minister, Government of Bihar.

The bench of Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ added that the accused persons who have been charge sheeted shall not claim any benefit for enlargement on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, as the charge sheet has already been filed by the State Police and further investigation is in progress by the CBI. [Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1143, decided on 17.10.2016]