Once a request for extradition is received in India, the Central Government may by virtue of Section 5 of the Extradition Act issue an order to any Magistrate who would have jurisdiction to inquire into the offence if it had been an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction to inquire into the case. Section 5 of the Extradition Act reads as under: Continue reading “Procedure to be followed by the Magistrate in Case of Extradition inquiry”
We can only repeat in this connection the observations of the Privy Council in – ‘AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) ’, in regard to the Magistrates placing themselves in positions where they would have to step into the witness box and depose as ordinary citizens-
“In their Lordships’ view it would be particularly unfortunate if Magistrates were asked at all generally to act rather as police Officers under Section 162 of the Code; and to be at the same time freed, notwithstanding their position as Magistrates, from any obligation to make records under Section 164. In the result they would indeed be relegated to the position of ordinary citizens as witnesses and then would be required to depose to matters transacted by them in their official capacity unregulated by any statutory rules of procedure or conduct whatever……..” Continue reading “Magistrates are the normal custodians of general administration of criminal justice”
The extract of Section 156 Cr.P.C.:
“156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.” Continue reading “Whether a Magistrate is empowered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct the Crime Branch CID to investigate an offence?”
In S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Ors. [(1970) 1 SCC 653].,this Court took the view that there is no mention of any power to stop an investigation by the police. The power of the police to investigate any cognizable offence is uncontrolled by the Magistrate, and it is only in cases where the police decide not to investigate the case, the Magistrate can intervene and either direct an investigation, or, in the alternative, himself proceed or depute a Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to enquire into the case. Continue reading “Power of the police to investigate has been made independent of any control by the Magistrate”
After referring to several decisions, the Supreme Court held that the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code should be related to the filing of complaint and not to the date of cognizance by the Magistrate or issuance of process by the Court. In Basavantappa Basappa Bannihalli and Anr. v. Shankarappa Marigallappa Bannihalli, 1990 Cri LJ 360 (Kant), a complaint was filed within ten … Continue reading The period of limitation in case of Criminal complaint is to be determined on the date of presentation of the complaint to the magistrate
Having analysed the provisions of the Code and the various judgments as afore-indicated, we would state the following conclusions in regard to the powers of a magistrate in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section 173(8) and Section 156(3) of the Code : 1. The Magistrate has no power to direct ‘reinvestigation’ or ‘fresh investigation’ (de novo) in the case initiated on the basis of … Continue reading Powers of a magistrate in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section 173(8) and Section 156(3) of the Code
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) in K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon Versus C.D. Shaji [(2011) 13 SCALE 232] Section 21 of the Act, which we have extracted above, contemplates a deeming provision, hence, it is a legal fiction that the “award” of the Lok Adalat is a Decree of a civil court. In the case on hand, the question posed for consideration before the High Court was that “when a … Continue reading When a criminal case filed U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, referred to by Magistrate Court to Lok Adalat is settled by the parties and an award is drawn, can it be considered as a Decree and executable? Yes.
Supreme Court in the case of K. Sitaram & Anr. v. CFL Capital Financial Service Ltd. & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.2285 of 2011], it was held that “when a person files a complaint and supports it on oath, rendering himself liable to prosecution and imprisonment if it is false, he is entitled to be believed unless there is some apparent reason for disbelieving him; and … Continue reading Unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint or sufficient material to justify the issue of process, he should not pass the order of issue of process.
Cr.P.C. S.251: It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when an accused appears before the trial Court pursuant to summons issued Under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion … Continue reading Magistrate is bound to discharge an accused in summons trial as per section 239 of Cr.P.C if the offence is not disclosed.
Cr.P.C. S.245(2): “Discharge at any previous stage of the case” occuring in S.245(2) is before the prosecution’s evidence under S.244(1) is completed, or at any stage prior to that, namely, the stages prescribed in Ss.200 to 204, Cr.P.C. Magistrate can therefore discharge accused after recording reasons, even at stage when accused appears in response to summons or warrant but no prosecution evidence has been led. Application … Continue reading Magistrate can discharge accused after recording reasons, even at stage when accused appears in response to summons or warrant but no prosecution evidence has been led.