1987 (7) TMI 582 - HC - Indian Laws

Challan deemed complete on 90th day, petitioner denied bail due to procedural compliance.

The court concluded that the challan submitted by the Investigating Officer was complete under Section 173(2) of the CrPC on the 90th day, leading to the ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the investigation can be considered complete under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) without the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report.2. The implications of not appending the CFSL report with the charge-sheet.3. The mandatory nature of the provision regarding the entitlement to bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.4. The definition and requirements of a 'police report' under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.5. The role of Section 173(5) of the CrPC in forwarding documents on which the prosecution relies.6. The impact of Section 173(7) on the mandatory nature of Section 173(5).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the investigation can be considered complete under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) without the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report:The court examined whether the investigation is deemed complete when the charge-sheet is submitted without the CFSL report. It was noted that the investigation must be completed within 90 days for offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. The court found that the police report or challan is considered complete if it includes the particulars required under Section 173(2)(i)(a) to (g) of the CrPC. The court concluded that the absence of the CFSL report does not render the investigation incomplete, as the police officer's job of collecting evidence is considered complete once the material exhibits are sent to the CFSL.2. The implications of not appending the CFSL report with the charge-sheet:The court determined that the police report remains complete even without the CFSL report. The CFSL report is admissible in evidence under Section 293 of the CrPC without formal proof. Thus, the police report submitted on the 90th day was deemed complete despite the absence of the CFSL report.3. The mandatory nature of the provision regarding the entitlement to bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC:Section 167(2) of the CrPC mandates that the detention of an accused cannot exceed 90 days for certain offenses, and the accused must be released on bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within this period. The court emphasized that this provision is mandatory and does not admit any exceptions, provided the accused is prepared to furnish bail.4. The definition and requirements of a 'police report' under Section 173(2) of the CrPC:The court referred to the definitions of 'investigation' and 'police report' under Sections 2(h) and 2(r) of the CrPC, respectively. The police report must include the particulars specified in Section 173(2)(i)(a) to (g). The court held that the police report is complete if it meets these requirements, and the absence of the CFSL report does not affect its completeness.5. The role of Section 173(5) of the CrPC in forwarding documents on which the prosecution relies:The court addressed the contention that the CFSL report should have been forwarded along with the police report under Section 173(5) of the CrPC. It was clarified that this provision imposes an additional duty on the investigating officer to send documents on which the prosecution relies, but it does not affect the completeness of the police report under Section 173(2).6. The impact of Section 173(7) on the mandatory nature of Section 173(5):The court noted that Section 173(7) allows the investigating officer to furnish copies of documents to the accused at his convenience, which reduces the mandatory nature of Section 173(5). Therefore, the omission of the CFSL report did not render the police report incomplete.Conclusion:The court concluded that the challan submitted by the Investigating Officer was complete in terms of Section 173(2) of the CrPC on the 90th day. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to bail under the proviso (a)(i) of Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The petition for the grant of bail was dismissed.Order accordingly.