2003 (4) TMI 593 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns High Court decision, allows appeal based on G.D. Entry No. 681.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision to quash the investigation based on G.D. Entry No. 681. The Court held that ... First Information Report (FIR) - sufficiency of information to disclose cognizable offence - Treatment of General Diary (G.D.) entry as FIR - Police power to investigate under Section 156/157 Cr.P.C. - reason to suspect - Validity of investigation and quashing in revision - Search and seizure - compliance with Section 165 Cr.P.C. and challenge at trial - Effect of incorrect statutory reference in information/FIR on initiation of investigation and framing of chargeFirst Information Report (FIR) - sufficiency of information to disclose cognizable offence - Treatment of General Diary (G.D.) entry as FIR - Police power to investigate under Section 156/157 Cr.P.C. - reason to suspect - Whether the General Diary Entry No. 681 disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and could lawfully furnish the basis for investigation (including being treated as an FIR). - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the GD Entry which alleged that the respondent, a public official, had demanded and accepted a sum of money as illegal gratification and was carrying it while travelling to Nagpur. The Court held that such an averment, if accepted at face value, makes out the essential allegation of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act and is therefore cognizable. A first information need not recite every ingredient of the statutory offence or be an exhaustive account of facts; what is required at the stage of recording is information that provides a reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and to set the investigatory machinery in motion. On that test the GD Entry supplied a sufficient basis for the police to suspect and investigate, and in an appropriate case a GD Entry may be treated as an FIR. Consequently the High Court erred in concluding that the GD Entry did not disclose a cognizable offence and in quashing the investigation on that ground. [Paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]G.D. Entry No. 681 did disclose facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offence and could lawfully furnish the basis for investigation; the High Court's quashing on that ground was erroneous.Validity of investigation and quashing in revision - Effect of incorrect statutory reference in information/FIR on initiation of investigation and framing of charge - Whether the High Court was justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction to quash the investigation, the FIR recorded on October 20, 1990, and to direct return of seized articles; and whether mention of an incorrect section in the GD Entry/FIR vitiates the investigation. - HELD THAT: - Having held that the GD Entry supplied a sufficient basis to suspect a cognizable offence, the Court found that the High Court had erred in invoking revisionary powers to quash the GD Entry, the FIR and the investigation. The Supreme Court observed that the mentioning of a wrong section in an information or GD Entry is not by itself conclusive to invalidate an investigation or to prevent the trial court from framing appropriate charges in accordance with the material on record. Questions as to which recorded entry is the FIR where multiple entries exist, and the framing of charges, are matters for the trial court to decide in the course of proceedings. In the facts of this case the High Court should not have set aside the investigation or ordered return of seized property. [Paras 15, 25, 26]The High Court erred in quashing the investigation, the FIR and in directing return of seized articles; incorrect statutory citation in the information does not automatically vitiate the investigation or preclude framing of appropriate charges.Search and seizure - compliance with Section 165 Cr.P.C. and challenge at trial - Whether the search and seizure were unlawful for want of recording in writing the grounds of belief as required by Section 165 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate the legality of the search and seizure at the appellate revisional stage, observing that it would be premature to decide that question in the present proceedings. It held that challenges to the compliance with statutory preconditions for search and seizure, including the recording of grounds of belief, are matters which the court trying the accused can consider when the issue is properly raised in that forum. Consequently the propriety of the search and seizure remains open to be agitated at trial and is not finally determined by this order. [Paras 25]Legality of the search and seizure under Section 165 Cr.P.C. was not finally decided; the question is reserved for consideration by the trial court and the investigation is to proceed.Final Conclusion: The High Court's order quashing the G.D. Entry, the FIR and the investigation and directing return of seized articles was set aside. The Supreme Court held that the G.D. Entry furnished a reasonable ground to suspect a cognizable offence and could justify investigation (and in appropriate circumstances be treated as an FIR); issues relating to the detailed legality of search and seizure and the formal identity of the FIR are left open for determination in the trial or by the court conducting the proceedings. The investigation is directed to continue in accordance with law. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the investigation based on G.D. Entry No. 681.2. Validity of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged on October 20, 1990.3. Legality of the search and seizure conducted on October 18, 1990.4. Return of the money and articles seized.Summary:1. Legality of the Investigation Based on G.D. Entry No. 681:The High Court quashed the investigation on the grounds that the General Diary (G.D.) Entry No. 681 did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It held that the G.D. Entry contained vague allegations and did not provide sufficient basis for the police to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court, however, found that the G.D. Entry did disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as it clearly stated that the respondent had demanded and accepted a sum of rupees one lakh by way of illegal gratification. The Court emphasized that a First Information Report (FIR) is not an encyclopedia and need not disclose all details of the offence. The information provided in the G.D. Entry was sufficient to set the investigative machinery in motion.2. Validity of the First Information Report (FIR) Lodged on October 20, 1990:The High Court held that the FIR lodged on October 20, 1990, was not valid as it was recorded after the investigation had already proceeded to some extent. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the G.D. Entry itself could be treated as the FIR since it disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court noted that the information received by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., clearly spelled out the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.3. Legality of the Search and Seizure Conducted on October 18, 1990:The High Court found the search and seizure to be illegal as the mandatory requirement of Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not fulfilled. The Investigating Officer did not record in writing the grounds for his belief that the search was necessary. The Supreme Court held that it was premature to consider the legality of the search and seizure at this stage, as this question should be addressed during the trial if the accused challenges the search and seizure.4. Return of the Money and Articles Seized:The High Court directed the return of the money and articles seized from the respondent. The Supreme Court set aside this order, allowing the investigation to proceed in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that its observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the investigating agency should complete the investigation and take appropriate action based on the evidence collected.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and directed the appellants to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. The Court clarified that its observations were made solely for deciding the question of whether the investigating agency was justified in taking up the investigation pursuant to G.D. Entry No. 681.