Judicial Vision August 2021

August 2021 Judicial Vision Issue # 8
At a glance…
Sl
No
Court Parties Journal Provision of
law
Dictum
observed by the Apex Court in Vinubhai Haribhai
Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019(5) KHC 352: AIR 2019
SC 5233). (Para 14)
21 High Court Johny v. State of
Kerala
Crl.A. no.
1190/2016
dated
07.07.2021
CrPC- Sec.
173,
As per section 173(1) of CrPC, every investigation under
Chapter XII of Cr.P.C shall be completed without
unnecessary delay. Sub section (1-A) of section 173
provides that, investigation in relation to an offence
under sections 376, 376-A, 376-AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D,
376-DA, 376-DB or 376-E of Indian Penal code shall be
submitted within 60 days. Section 173(3) provides that
as soon as the investigation is complete, a police report
in the prescribed manner is to be forwarded to a
Magistrate, who is competent to take cognizance
thereof. As per the above provisions, no time limit is
prescribed for completing the investigation, with
respect to the offences other than those mentioned in
section 173(1-A)). As the offence under section 302 of
IPC is not among the offences mentioned in section
173(1-A), the time limit prescribed therein is not
applicable. The provision applicable in this case is s.
173(1), which provides for completion of the
investigation, without “unnecessary delay”. So, the
question to be considered is whether there is
unnecessary delay in completing the investigation. It is
true that the proviso to section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C
stipulates a period of 90 days for completing the
investigation. The period prescribed in section 167 (2)
is a statutory stipulation affecting the detention of the
accused and in no manner, it curtails the right of the
police to investigate. This is particularly so, as the
period of investigation is governed by section 173 of
Cr.P.C, and it does not provide for any time limit for
offences other than those mentioned in section 173(1-
A). The only stipulation therein is that the investigation
has to be completed without unnecessary delay. Of
course, section 468 of Cr.P.C provides for a period of
limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences.
However, section 468 does not prescribe any period of
limitation for the offences punishable with
imprisonment for life. This being a case involving an
offence punishable with imprisonment for life, what is
applicable is section 173(1) and thus, the police were
only under an obligation to complete the investigation
and submit the charge sheet without unnecessary delay.
(Para 6)
The expression “unnecessary delay” is subjective in
nature, as it depends upon various factors and it may
vary from case to case, depending upon the factual
scenario, of each case. (Para 7)
The existence of enmity by itself cannot be taken as a
ground to disregard the evidence of a witness, if it is
found in a scrutiny that the said evidence is otherwise
convincing and consistent. (Para 17)
22 High Court Yasir v. Director or
Vigilance and
Anticorruption
Bureau
2021 (4) KLT
369
PC Act- Sec.
13(1)(b),
13(1)(e) & 13
(2), CrPC-
Secs. 154 to
173
The cause of an affected accused cannot be agitated by
next friends or close relatives unless the accused is
incapacitated to take recourse to legal remedy (See
Romila Thapar v. Union of India: AIR 2018 SC 4683).(Para
13)
It is for the investigating agency to submit final report in
the court concerned after full and complete
investigation. The investigating agency may submit a
report finding the allegations substantiated. It is also
Page Page | 12 | 12
Go to: In this Issue