Aim and Basic Principles
Article 1 This Law is enacted in accordance with the Constitution and for the purpose of ensuring correct enforcement of the Criminal Law, punishing crimes, protecting the people, safeguarding state and public security and maintaining socialist public order.
Article 2 The aim of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China is to ensure accurate and timely ascertainment of the facts of crimes, correct application of law, punishment of criminals and protection of the innocent from being held criminally responsible; to enhance the citizens’ awareness of the need to abide by the law and to fight vigorously against criminal acts; to safeguard the socialist legal system; to respect and safeguard human rights; to protect the citizens’ personal and property rights, their democratic rights and other rights; and to guarantee smooth progress of the cause of socialist development.
(October 26, 2018)
Part One General Provisions
Chapter I Aim and Basic Principles
Chapter II Jurisdiction
Chapter III Recusal
Chapter IV Defense and Representation
Chapter V Evidence
Chapter VI Compulsory Measures
Chapter VII Incidental Civil Actions
Chapter VIII Time Limits and Service
Chapter IX Other Provisions
Part Two Filing a Case, Investigation, and Public Prosecution
Chapter I Filing a Case
Chapter II Investigation
Section 1 General Provisions
Section 2 Interrogation of Criminal Suspects
Section 3 Questioning of Witnesses
Section 4 Inquest and Examination
Section 5 Search
Section 6 Sealing and Seizure of Physical Evidence and Documentary Evidence
Section 7 Expert Evaluation
Section 8 Technical Investigative Measures
Section 9 Wanted Orders
Section 10 Conclusion of Investigation
Section 11 Investigation of Cases Directly Accepted by People’s Procuratorates
Chapter III Initiation of Public Prosecution
Part Three Trial
Chapter I Trial Organizations
Chapter II Procedure of First Instance
Section 1 Cases of Public Prosecution
Section 2 Cases of Private Prosecution
Section 3 Summary Procedure
Section 4 Expedited Trial Procedure
Chapter III Procedure of Second Instance
Chapter IV Procedure for Death Sentence Review
Chapter V Procedure for Trial Supervision
Part Four Execution
Part Five Special Procedures
Chapter I Procedure for Juvenile Delinquency Cases
Chapter II Procedure for a Publicly Prosecuted Case Where the Parties Reaches a Settlement
Chapter III Procedure for Trial in Absentia
Chapter IV Procedure for Confiscating Illegal Gains Involved in a Case Where the Criminal Suspect or Defendant Escapes, Hides or is Dead
Chapter V Procedure for Compulsory Medical Treatment of a Mental Patient Who does not Bear Criminal responsibility According to Law
(Adopted at the Second Session of the Fifth National People’s Congress on July 1, 1979; amended for the first time in according with the Decision on Amending the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China adopted at the Forth Session of the Eighth National People’s Congress on March 17, 1996; amended for the second time in accordance with the Decision on Amending the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China adopted at the Fifth Session of the Eleventh National People’s Congress on March 14, 2012; amended for the third time in accordance with the Decision on Amending the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China adopted at the 6th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Thirteenth National People’s Congress on October 26, 2018)
LAW NO. (15) OF 1971
THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES LAW
We, Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani, Deputy Ruler of Qatar, after reviewing the provisional statute of government in Qatar , in particular on articles (21) , (23) , (37) , and (73) thereof, and the draft law of criminal procedures submitted by the Council of Ministers,
We have decided the following law:
Issuance Articles (1-2)
Chapter One: General Provisions and Definitions (1-4)
Chapter Two: In the investigation (5-9)
Chapter Three: In Communications and Complaints (10-15)
Chapter Seven: Arrest and Follow-up Procedures (16-32)
Chapter Five: Preventive Confinement (33-35)
We have referred at some length to the documents setting out the case in India. We have also summarised the findings of the SDJ. We consider that while the scope of the prima facie case found by the SDJ is in some respects wider than that alleged by the Respondent in India, there is a prima facie case which, in seven important respects, coincides with the allegations in India.
This is the judgment of the Court to which we have both contributed. The Appellant appeals against a decision of Senior District Judge Arbuthnot (“the SDJ”), sitting at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, on 10 December 2018 to send the Appellant’s case to the Secretary of State.The Appellant was the controlling director of Kingfisher Airways (“KFA”). He also controlled a large group of companies in India, the United Breweries Group (“UB”), of which KFA was part. He assumed control of UB in 1983. After a series of acquisitions in the 1980s and 1990s, UB expanded into over 20 countries. United Breweries Holdings Ltd (“UBHL”) had its headquarters in Bangalore. The GoI made an extradition request in respect of the Appellant, submitted on 9 February 2017, which was certified by the Secretary of State on 16 February 2017. A warrant for the Appellant’s arrest was issued on 28 March 2017, and he was arrested and granted bail on conditions on 18 April 2017. However, additional charges were received from the GoI, and the extradition request re-certified on 25 September 2017. A fresh warrant was executed on 3 October 2017, and the Appellant re-arrested and once again bailed.
Reference may be made to Section 311 of the Code which reads as follows :
“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present –
Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.
and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case”.
The section is manifestly in two parts. Whereas the word used in the first part is “may”, the second part uses “shall”. In consequences, the first part gives purely discretionary authority to a Criminal Court and enables it at any stage of an enquiry, trial or proceeding under the Code
(a) to summon any one as a witness, or
(b) to examine any person present in Court, or
(c) to recall and re-examine any person whose evidence has already been recorded.
The proposition that in cases instituted on complaint in regard to an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the standard for ascertaining whether or not the evidence collected in the preliminary inquiry discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused is lower than the one to be adopted at the stage of framing charges in a warrant case triable by the Magistrate, is now evident from the scheme of the new Code of 1973. Section 209 of the Code of 1973 dispenses with the inquiry preliminary to commitment in cases triable exclusively by a Court of Session, irrespective of whether such a case is instituted on a criminal complaint or a police report.
Section 209 says: “When a case instituted on a police report or otherwise the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he shall commit the case to the Court of Session”. If the Committing Magistrate thinks that it is not necessary of commit the adduced who may be on bail to custody, he may not cancel the bail. This has been made clear by the words “subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail” occurring in clause (b) of Section 209. Therefore, if the accused is already on bail, his bail should not be arbitrarily cancelled. Section 227 of the Code of 1973 has made another beneficent provision to save the accused from prolonged harassment which is necessary concomitant of a protracted trial. This Section provides that if upon considering the record of the case, the documents submitted with it and the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, the Judge is not convinced that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he has to discharge the accused under this Section and record his reasons for so doing.
We have no doubt that a Special Court under this Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In other words, a complaint or a charge-sheet cannot straightway be laid before the Special Court under the Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Gangula Ashok and another Vs State of ANDHRA PRADESH
(Before: K. T. Thomas And M. B. Shah, JJ.)
Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2000 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri) No. 3828 of 1999)
Decided on: 28-01-2000.
Counsel for the Parties:
Shakil Ahmed Syed, Shujat Hussain, Advocates, for Appellants
Guntur Prabhakar, Advocate, for Respondent.
Thomas, J—Leave granted.
The section itself declares the object in explicit language that it is “for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him”. In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 612, Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) speaking for a three-Judge Bench has focussed on the ultimate test in determining whether the provision has been fairly complied with. He observed thus:
“The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under Section 342 would be to enquire whether, having regard to all the questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against him. If it appears that the examination of the accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that would no doubt be a serious infirmity.”
Thus it is well settled that the provision is mainly intended to benefit the accused and as its corollary to benefit the Court in reaching the final conclusion.
Issuing Non-bailable Warrant by the Criminal Court to secure the attendance of the Accused
It needs little emphasis that since the execution of a non-bailable warrant directly involves curtailment of liberty of a person, warrant of arrest cannot be issued mechanically, but only after recording satisfaction that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is warranted.
The Courts have to be extra-cautious and careful while directing issue of non-bailable warrant, else a wrongful detention would amount to denial of constitutional mandate envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, there is No. gainsaying that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. Therefore, in order to maintain rule of law and to keep the society in functional harmony, it is necessary to strike a balance between an individual’s rights, liberties and privileges on the one hand, and the State on the other. Indeed, it is a complex exercise. As Justice Cardozo puts it “on the one side is the social need that crime shall be repressed. On the other, the social need that law shall not be flouted by the insolence of office. There are dangers in any choice.” Be that as it may, it is for the court, which is clothed with the discretion to determine whether the presence of an accused can be secured by a bailable or non-bailable warrant, to strike the balance between the need of law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of the citizen from highhandedness at the hands of the law enforcement agencies on the other. The power and jurisdiction of the court to issue appropriate warrant against an accused on his failure to attend the court on the date of hearing of the matter cannot be disputed. Nevertheless, such power has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, having regard, inter-alia, to the nature and seriousness of the offence involved; the past conduct of the accused; his age and the possibility of his absconding. Also See: State of U.P. v. Poosu and Anr., (1976) 3 SCC 1
Cr.P.C Sec 311- Power to summon material witness, or examine person present
Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”
Anatomy of the section
- Any Court [
- Power to summon material witness
- or examine person present
- Any Stage
- Any Inquiry
- Any Trial
- Other Proceeding
- Essential for the case
- Just decision
- For evidence