INVESTIGATION OF CRIME

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Dr. Peter F. Ladis Gyanendra Singh

Faculty, Criminal Law-II 2nd Year, 4th Semester

(1529, BA. LL.B)

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW-II

APRIL, 2018

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR,

MITHAPUR, PATNA (800001)
Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3
AIMS AND OBJECTTIVES OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................... 5
 HYPOTHESIS ...................................................................................................................................... 5
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS................................................................................................................... 5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 6
SCOPE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 6
WHAT IS AN INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................... 7
DIFFICULTIES OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ........................................................................ 14
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTIGATION OF CRIME ................................................................ 16
INFORMATION TO THE POLICE AS TO COGNIZABLE CASES (SEC 154) ................................ 16
INFORMATION AS TO NON- COGNIZABLE CASES AND INVESTIGATION OF SUCH CASES.
(SEC 155) ............................................................................................................................................... 16
POLICE OFFICER' S POWER TO INVESTIGATE COGNIZABLE CASE. (SEC 156) .................... 17
PROCEDURE FOR INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY INQUIRY. (SEC 157) ............................... 17
INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE AND NON-COGNIZABLE OFFENCES .................................. 19
SEC 157: THE PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATION .............................................................................. 21
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ....................................................................................................... 26
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 28
INTRODUCTION

The manner in which police investigations are conducted is of critical importance to the functioning of the
Criminal Justice System. Not only serious miscarriage of justice will result if the collection of evidence is
vitiated by error or malpractice, but successful prosecution of the guilty depends on a thorough and
careful search for truth and collection of evidence which is both admissible and probative. In undertaking
this search, it is the duty of the police to investigate fairly and thoroughly and collect all evidence,
whether for or against the suspect. Protection of the society being the paramount consideration, the laws,
procedures and police practices must be such as to ensure that the guilty are apprehended and punished
with utmost dispatch and in the process the innocent are not harassed. The aim of the investigation and, in
fact, the entire Criminal Justice System is to search for truth. To achieve this objective, the investigating
officers must be properly trained and supervised and necessary scientific and logistical support should be
made available to them. The police perceive themselves psychologically and morally bound to do
everything possible to curb crime and investigate the cases successfully to meet the peoples’ expectations.
In this process the police often resort to short cut methods and exhibit negative traits of police sub-culture,
namely, rudeness, use of third degree methods, defensiveness in face of criticism, lack of innovativeness
etc.

Even though investigation is the foundation of the Criminal Justice System it is unfortunate that it is not
trusted by the laws and the courts. Sections 161 and 162 of the Code provide that the statements of the
witnesses examined during investigation are not admissible and that they can only be used by the defense
to contradict the maker of the statement. The confession made by accused is also not admissible in
evidence. The statements recorded at the earliest stage normally have greater probative value but can’t be
used in evidence. The observations of the courts in several criminal cases show that the Judges are
reluctant to accept the testimony of police officers. Such is not the position in other countries. This is a
historical legacy of the colonial rulers. It is common knowledge that police often use third degree

methods during investigation. There are also allegations that in some cases they try to suppress truth and
put forward falsehood before court for reasons such as corruption or extraneous influences political or
otherwise. Unless the basic problem of strengthening the foundation is solved the guilty continue to
escape conviction and sometimes even innocent persons may get implicated and punished. It is therefore
necessary to address ourselves to the problems and strengthen the investigation agency.
AIMS AND OBJECTTIVES OF THE STUDY

 AIM

This project aims to develop an idea behind the law empowering the police to investigate
Cognizable and Non Cognizable cases under the chapter VIII of Criminal procedure code, 1973
which has widen the ambit of certain powers given, purpose fulfilled, actions recognized.

 OBJECTIVES
1. To critically examine the procedure laid down in Criminal Procedural Code for investigation
of a crime.
2. To critically analyse the provisions regarding the investigation done in Cognizable and Non
Cognizable offence.
3. To find out the difficulties occur to Investigating officers.

 HYPOTHESIS

1. Sec 156 confers wide powers on the police to investigate a cognizable offence
without the Magistrate.
2. Powers of the Police to investigate a non-cognizable case depends upon
Magistrate’s order.

 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1) What is the judicial interpretation of the sections 154, 155, 156 and 157 under the chapter
VIII of Cr.P.C., 1973?
2) What is the scope of the sections 154, 155, 156 and 157 in the Indian society?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researches would be following the doctrinal research methodology. The researcher will be
collecting valuable data from library which includes the written works and from the field. All
these data will help the researcher to solve his research problem.

All the website, books, journals, articles published in newspapers, bodies, reports of law
commission and case laws.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The research includes an analysis of the provision empowered by law to police for investigation
of offences be it cognizable or non cognizable as per the provisions of the Criminal procedure
Code.

The researchers will prepare a research project based on the sections 154, 155, 156 and 157. This
is meant to provide for a very comprehensive platform for audience to understand such intricate
provisions. A plain reading and understanding of these sections will result in proper way to
address the police power empowered by the law. Thus, a proper information will be available
regarding the powers of the police to the audience.
WHAT IS AN INVESTIGATION

Section 2 (h) of the CRPC reads as under:

2.(h) “investigation” includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence
conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a
Magistrate in this behalf;

Section 2(h) CrPC defines “investigation” and it includes all the proceedings under the Code for
the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a
Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. It ends with the formation of the
opinion as to whether on the material collected, there is a case to place the accused before a
Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by filing of a charge-sheet
under Section 173. Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja1 .

A three Judge Bench in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi , while dealing with investigation, has
stated that under the Code, investigation consists generally of the following steps:

(a) Proceeding to the spot,

(b) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case,
(c) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender,
(d) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of:
(i) The examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their
statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit,
(ii) The search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be
produced at the trial, and
(e) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the
accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the
filing of a chargesheet under Section 173.
In Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B2. , it has been opined that:
“arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused
may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission
and aftermath of the crime and connection of other persons, if any, in the crime.”

In Niranjan Singh v. State of U.P3. , it has been laid down that investigation is not an inquiry or
trial before the Court and that is why the Legislature did not contemplate any irregularity in
investigation as of sufficient importance to vitiate or otherwise form any infirmity in the inquiry
or trial.

In S.N.Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwar4 , it has been observed that the power of police to
investigate is independent of any control by the Magistrate.

In State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha5 , it has been observed that there is a clear cut and well
demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment and further
investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive in the Police
Department. Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others,(2013)6 1 SCC 314.

Further Investigation
The mere undertaking of a further investigation either by the investigating officer on his own or
upon the directions of the superior police officer or pursuant to a direction by the Magistrate
concerned to whom the report is forwarded does not mean that the report submitted under
Section 173 (2) is abandoned or rejected. It is only that either the investigating agency or the
court concerned is not completely satisfied with the material collected by the investigating
agency and is of the opinion that possibly some more material is required to be collected in order
to sustain the allegations of the commission of the offence indicated in the report. Vipul Shital
Prasad Agarwal v. State of Gujarat and another7, (2013)

Officer competent to investigate.- Sub-section (1) confines investigations to officers not below
the rank of an officer-in-charge of a police station but enables the State Government to specify a
lower rank. An officer-in-charge of a police station may, therefore, himself investigate, or depute
one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may prescribe
in this behalf. An Inspector of the criminal investigation department being an officer superior in
rank to a police station house officer has authority to make an investigation under this
section.8But Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair observed to the effect that the sections in Chapter XII,
Cr.P.C. contemplate information to be given to an officer-in-charge of a police station. The right
to investigate cognizable cases is also given to a police station house officer. The obligation to
report to the Magistrate is also imposed upon the same officer. The whole scheme of the Chapter
clearly shows that the police officer entitled to investigate an offence are the police officers
referred to in the Cr.P.C. or his superior officer within the limits of the local area of his
jurisdiction. Hence, an inspector of the criminal investigation department, who is not one of the
kind of officers above referred to is not entitled to investigate a case. The authority to investigate
must be given to him by the law. The question whether any authority is legally competent to
investigate a fact or not is neither a question of fact nor a mixed question of fact and law. 9 In the
matter of investigation, the indifferent attitude of the investigating agency cannot but be
deprecated.10

7
1 SCC 81
8
Per White, C.J., and Aying J., in 35 Mad 247 (FB)
9
Per Sankaran Nair, J., in 35 Mad 247 (355, 356) : 14 IC 849. See also 1993 Cr LJ 3716 (Raj), where the
investigation made by the Circle Inspector, who on receipt of information conducted search, seized unauthorised
opium from the accused and made further investigations himself, was held to mitigate against the basic tenets of
jurisprudence and for investigation and conviction and sentence were set aside
10
Lichhamadevi v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cr LJ 1812 (SC) : AIR 1988 SC 1785 : (1988) 3 Crimes 1.
The head constable who has recovered pistols and arrested the accused and on whose complaint
F.I.R. was lodged should not investigate the case.11

(iii) Deputing subordinate for investigation.- An officer-in-charge of a police station is

empowered to depute one of his subordinate officers to proceed to the spot to investigate the
facts and circumstances of the case and, if necessary, to take measures for the apprehension of
the offenders.12 A police constable deputed under this section cannot enter a house in search of
property but he would do so in search of the offender's person.13

(iv) Delay in investigation.- As an accused person is likely to be greatly prejudiced by any delay
in investigation, the court is bound in case of delayed investigation, to hold a full enquiry into the
cause of such delay and duly consider its effect upon the case. 14 But the question of delay in
investigation a case is a relative one depending on various factors including the nature and extent
of the particular case and due opportunity should be given to the prosecution to complete the
investigation.15 However, the investigation should be made promptly without delay, because
delay causes serious prejudice either to the accused or to the prosecution.16

Where investigation staggers on with tardy pace due to indolence or inefficiency of the
investigating agency causing unreasonable and substantial delay resulting in grave prejudice or
disadvantage to the accused, the court will step in and quash further proceedings. But no general
and wide proposition of law can be formulated that wherever there is any inordinate delay on the
part of investigating agency in completing the investigation it will be a ground to quash F.I.R. 17

(v) Local jurisdiction of police.- In section 157, there is no provision preventing the police of
one police station from acting under that section in the jurisdiction of another police station.
Though section 165 restricts the powers of a police officer to the limits of the station in his
charge and though the locking of the doors of the accused's house is a step facilitating the search

11
Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995 Cr LJ 3988 (SC).
12
(1972) 2 Cut WR 1149.
13
7 BHC (Cri) 50 (52).
14
13 Lah 573 : AIR 1932 Lah 345 (347) ; 2 Bom LR 1092.
15
Anthony Allen Fletcher v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 304 (Cal).
16
1981 Cr LJ 776 (HP)
17
State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran, AIR 1990 SC 1266.
of the house, yet the locking of the doors and the keeping of guards over the house are also part
of the ordinary duties of the police under section 157.18

(vi) Judicial interference in investigation.- It is of utmost importance that the judiciary does not
interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which law imposes
upon them the duty of enquiry. Investigation is within the exclusive province of the police and
the courts should not normally interfere.19The field of investigation of any cognizable offence is
exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which the courts cannot have
control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long
as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to it.20It is not function
of the courts to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress
any provision of law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, timing and
the questions and the manner of putting such questions to the persons involved in the offences. A
blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual. 21
However Allahabad High Court directed the police to take coloured photographs, to video tape
the post mortem, and to make the investigation more scientific and appointed a committee to
report.22Investigation into an offence is a statutory function of the police and the superintendence
thereof is vested in the State Government and the court is not justified without any compelling
and justifiable reason to interfere with the investigation.23 It cannot be said that in no
circumstance the High Court can exercise its power under section 482. Of course, where, within
the limits of the exercise of the statutory power, the police, in cognizable offence, takes up
investigation under section 157, the High Court will refrain from interfering in the course of
investigation.24

18
16 Cr LJ 551 : 12 PR 1915 (Cri).
19
Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 : 1945 Cr LJ 413 (PC) ; Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992)
4 SCC 305 ; State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Cr LJ 527 (SC) ; Niyamavedi v. Raman
Srivastava, II (1995) CCR 482 (Ker) ; V. Joseph Thomas v. Sabu George, 1998 Cr LJ 1191 (Ker) : 1998 (2) Cur Cri
R 342 : ILR 1998 (2) Ker 97 : 1998 Mad LJ (Cri) 320 : 1998 (1) Ker LT 126.
20
Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Cr LJ 859 (SC) ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Cr LJ 527 (SC) ;
State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldana, AIR 1980 SC 326 : 1980 Cr LJ 98.
21
Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, 1998 Cr LJ 841 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 696 : 1998 AIR SCW 361 :
1997 (4) Crimes 299 : (1998) 1 SCC 52 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 261 : 1998 (1) Cur Cri R 153 : 1997 (10) Supreme 62 :
1997 (7) Scale 258 : 1998 Mad LJ (Cri) 246 : 1998 (1) East Cri C 492 : 1998 (1) Rec Cri R 354 : 1998 (36) ACrC
150 : 1998 (1) All Cri LR 81 ; CBI v. Anil Sharma, JT 1997 (7) SC 651 : (1997) AIR SCW 3722
22
Daya Shankar v. State of U.P., 1999 Cr LJ 302 (All).
23
M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanya Kumar, 1992 Cr LJ 3450 (SC) : AIR 1992 SC 1930.
24
C.N. Seetharam v. State of Karnataka, 1989 Cr LJ 1217 (Kant).
As emphasised by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal , the investigation of an offence is the field
exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as
the power is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions of Chap. XII of the
Cr.P.C. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits, then the court on being
approached by the aggrieved person for redress, has to consider the nature and extent of the
breach and pass appropriate order as may be called for.77

Sine qua non for lawful investigation by the police is a reasonable suspicion of commission of a
cognizable offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that High Court lacks jurisdiction to examine the
challenge to the F.I.R. and quash it, if it comes to the conclusion that from the F.I.R. and other
material collected during investigation no cognizable offence is made out.25

(vii) Rights of accused in investigation.- The provisions relating to investigation under Chapter
XII do not confer any right of prior notice and hearing to the accused. Save under certain
exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of
right during the course of investigation till filing of a report under section 173(2) or in
proceedings instituted otherwise than on a police report, till process is issued under section 204
of the Code.

There are certain provisions under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an opportunity of
being heard under certain circumstances.

An accused cannot claim any right of prior notice or opportunity of being heard inclusive of his
arrest or search of his residence and seizure of any property in his possession connected with the
crime unless otherwise provided under the law.

There are certain rights of being informed of the grounds of arrest, when arrested, not being
detained for more than 24 hours, and under section 167, which are in conformity with the right of
life and personal liberty enshrined in article 21 and the safeguards contained in article 22 of the
Constitution.79

(viii) Irregularities in investigation-Effect.- Mere fact that the investigating officer committed
irregularities or illegalities during the course of investigation would not and does not cast doubt
on the prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record
acquittal on that account.26

(ix) Result of investigation-Admissibility.- The result of investigation under Chapter XII is a

conclusion that an investigating officer draws on the basis of the material collected by him
during investigation and this conclusion can only form basis of taking cognizance. The trial court
is then required to base its conclusions solely on the basis of the evidence and cannot rely on the
result of investigation.27 Where the defence examined deputy superintendent of police and
additional deputy superintendent of police to say that they had perused the case diary and had
interrogated some accused and other persons and they found the accused to be innocent, the
Supreme Court held that this evidence was not admissible and should not have been permitted by
the trial court.28

7. Complaint case and police report.- Where a complaint is filed and the Magistrate has
information that the police is also investigating the same offence, the Magistrate shall stay the
complaint case. If the police report is received in the case, the Magistrate should try together the
complaint case and the case arising out of the police report. But if no such report is received, the
Magistrate would be free to dispose of the complaint case. If the Magistrate disposes of the
complaint case and acquits the accused for want of evidence, there is no illegality.29

26
Rita Wilson v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 2400 (HP).
27
Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, AIR 1993 SC 1082.
28
State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, 1996 Cr LJ 2003 (SC)
29
Vijender v. State of Delhi, JT 1997 (3) SC 131.
DIFFICULTIES OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS

The Committee has interacted with a cross-section of the police officers at all levels and in different
States. The police officers have mentioned the following difficulties before the Committee in ensuring
speedy, effective and fair investigation:

1. Excessive workload due to inadequacy of manpower and long working hours even on holidays and the
absence of shift system;

2. Non co-operative attitude of the public at large;

3. Inadequacy of logistical and forensic back up support;

4. Inadequacy of trained investigating personnel;

5. Inadequacy of the state-of-the-art training facilities in investigation, particularly in- service training;

6. Lack of coordination with other sub-system of the Criminal Justice System in crime prevention, control
and search for truth;

7. Distrust of the laws and courts,

8. Lack of laws to deal effectively the emerging areas of crime such as organised crime, money
laundering etc.

9. Misuse of bail and anticipatory bail provisions;

10. Directing police for other tasks which are not a part of police functions;
11. Interrupting investigation work by being withdrawn for law and order duties in the midst of
investigation.

12. Political and executive interference;

13. Existing preventive laws being totally ineffective in curbing criminal tendencies of hardened criminals
and recidivists.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTIGATION OF CRIME

INFORMATION TO THE POLICE AS TO COGNIZABLE CASES (SEC 154)

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in
charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to
the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid,
shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by
such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to
the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the
information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by
post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to
be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer
shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

INFORMATION AS TO NON- COGNIZABLE CASES AND INVESTIGATION OF

SUCH CASES. (SEC 155)

(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the
limits of such station of a non- cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of
the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe
in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

(2) No police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having
power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation
(except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a
cognizable case.

(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be
deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non- cognizable.

POLICE OFFICER' S POWER TO INVESTIGATE COGNIZABLE CASE. (SEC

156)

(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.

PROCEDURE FOR INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY INQUIRY. (SEC 157)

(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to
suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall
forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a
police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below
such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed,
to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for
the discovery and arrest of the offender; Provided that-

(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and
the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or
depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on
an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.

(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub- section (1), the officer in
charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the
requirements of that sub- section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer
shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State
Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.
INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE AND NON-COGNIZABLE
OFFENCES

Section 2(c) of the Code defines ‘Cognizable Offence’ and ‘Cognizable case’ as follows: - “Cognizable
Offence” means an offence means an offence for which, and “Cognizable case” means a case in which, a
police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in
force, arrest without warrant”.
It says that those offences which are specified in the schedule to the Code in which police officer can
arrest without warrant are cognizable offences. But when we look at the Schedule we find that there is no
enumeration of offences where police officer can arrest without warrant. This is a patent anomaly.
However the Schedule specifies the offences which are cognizable and which are not. It also gives
information about punishment for each offence, whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable, and the
name of the court where the offence can be tried.

The question for examination is as to whether the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable
offences is conducive to satisfactory dispensation of criminal justice. ‘Offence’ as defined in Section 2
(n) means:- Any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any
act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 (1 of
1871). Whenever any offence is committed it results in the invasion of the rights of the citizen and the
victim is entitled to complain about such invasion. In this connection the Code makes a distinction
between cognizable and non-cognizable offences. Cognizable offences are by and large serious in nature.
Section 154 provides that any information received in the police station in respect of a cognizable offence
shall be reduced into writing, got signed by the informant and entered in the concerned register. Section
156(1) requires the concerned officer to investigate the facts and circumstances of such a case without any
order from the Magistrate in this behalf. If Magistrate receives information about commission of a
cognizable offence he can order an investigation. In such cases citizen is spared the trouble and expense
of investigating and prosecuting the case. However, the position is different so far as non-cognizable
offences are concerned. They are regulated by Section 155 of the Code. When a citizen goes to the
concerned police station complaining about commission of a noncognizable offence the police officer is
required to enter the substance of the information in the relevant register and refer the informant to the
Magistrate. Subsection 2 of Section 155 says that the police officer shall not investigate such a case
without the order of the Magistrate. In such cases the citizen is forced to approach the Magistrate to file
his complaint. The Magistrate will examine thecomplainant and the witnesses present and decide whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding further. The burden of adducing evidence during trial is on the
accused. The offences that are non-cognizable include Public servants disobeying law to cause injury to
any person; bribery during election; giving or fabricating false evidence; escape from confinement;
offences relating to weights and measures; some offence affecting public health, safety, convenience and
morals; causing miscarriage; causing heart; buying or disposing of any person as a slave; rape of wife
under 12 years; dishonest misappropriation; cheating; mischief; forgery; making or using documents
resembling currency notes or bank notes; offences relating to marriage; criminal intimidation; causing
annoyance in a state of intoxication in a public place etc. These are some of the offences which seriously
affect the citizens. Some of them carry imprisonment from a few months to imprisonment for life.
Offence under Section 194 I.P.C carries death sentence. Quantum of punishment prescribed indicates the
seriousness of the crime and its adverse affect on society. But even such serious offences adverted above
are non-cognizable. There is no good reason why such offences should not be investigated without the
order of the Magistrate..
SEC 157: THE PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATION

1. Legislative history.- Section 157 corresponds to section 157 of the old Code with a minor change in
the marginal note and other necessary drafting changes.

2. Scope of provision.- Section 157 requires the police officer to proceed to the spot to investigate but
this does not mean that investigation under Chapter XII does not begin until the officer has reached the
spot. Under the proviso (a) to sub-section (1) of that section, when the case is not serious, investigation
need not be at the spot, as distinguished from proviso (b) , where investigation may be dispensed with
altogether. Moreover, "investigation" includes all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of
evidence conducted by a police officer or by a person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a
Magistrate in this behalf. 1 This section, however, requires the police officer to immediately commence
investigation when he has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence within the
jurisdiction of his police station.2 The section provides the manner in which investigation has to be
conducted where the commission of a cognizable offence is suspected and further authorises the officer-
in-charge of a police station not to investigate the case if he thinks that there is no sufficient ground for
holding such investigation and provides and regulates the procedure to be followed by him. 30

3. Procedure on receipt of information of commission of cognizable offence by station house officer

outside station limits.- The Cr.P.C. is curiously silent as to the correct procedure to be adopted by a
station house officer who receives information of the commission of a cognizable offence outside the
limits of his station. But there is nothing in section 154 to prevent his receiving and recording the
information, though he has no power under section 157 to conduct an investigation.31

4. Condition precedent-Reason to suspect commission of cognizable offence.- The condition

precedent for investigation is that the police officer must have reason to suspect the commission of a
cognizable offence,32and this reason may be based either on information received or otherwise.6

Commencement of investigation by a police officer is subject to two conditions, firstly the police officer
should have reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, and secondly he should be

30
58 Cal 1312 (1323) ; S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari, 1970 Cr LJ 764 (SC) : AIR 1970 SC 786 : 1969 Cr LJ
221 (Mys).
31
Beli Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 Cr LJ 776 (HP).
32
AIR 1932 Lah 611 (612) : 33 Cr LJ 912.
subjectively satisfied that there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation. This satisfaction has
to be reached from the first information and material, if any, available at that stage.33

(i) "From information received".- The words "from information received" in this section refer to the
information given under section 154, i.e., information furnished and recorded under section 154 and a
telegram, in general of the occurrence of a dacoity, is not such information. However, the F.I.R. must
disclose, prima facie , that a cognizable offence has been committed and this shows that the police officer
does not have unfettered discretion to commence investigation under section 157.

Even if the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies acts in contravention of any statutory provisions in
preferring a complaint to the police, that may not affect the jurisdiction of the police officer to investigate
into a complaint of the commission of cognizable offences like those punishable under sections 406 and
409, I.P.C. Even if any irregularity taints the complaint, section 157(1) is sufficient to clothe the police
with jurisdiction to investigate. Even on information received from whatever source that information was
received, or even otherwise, if the police officer-in-charge of the police has reason to suspect that a
cognizable offence has been committed, he has jurisdiction to investigate under section 157(1).

(ii) "Or otherwise".- The words "or otherwise" in section 157(1) indicate that an F.I.R. is not condition
precedent to the investigation of a cognizable offence and, therefore, these are wide enough to cover the
receipt of a telegram or even less definite and less satisfactory sources of information ; though the
question will be whether on receipt of the telegram in general of the occurrence of an offence e.g.,
dacoity, the police officer who received it did as a fact institute any investigation under the section.
However, mere knowledge on the part of the police of the fact of a complaint having been preferred to a
Magistrate will suffice to entitle them to investigate.

The receipt and recording of an information report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of
a criminal investigation. There is no reason why the police, if in possession through their own knowledge
or by means of credible though informal intelligence which genuinely leads them to the belief that a
cognizable offence has been committed, should not of their own motion undertake an investigation into
the truth of the matters alleged.15 It is clear from section 157 that an officer-in-charge of a police station
can start investigation either on information or otherwise.

5. Report to be sent to Magistrate 'forthwith'.- Section 157(1) requires the F.I.R. to be sent 'forthwith'
to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence.

33
Per Ayling, J., in 1914 MWN 382 (384) : 15 Cr LJ 622.
Section 157(1) requires the officer-in-charge of a police station to send the report forthwith, i.e., without
delay and immediately to the Magistrate so that he may direct an investigation or, if he thinks fit, to
proceed at once or depute any other Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to hold a preliminary
enquiry as required by section 159. The forwarding of the occurrence report is indispensable and absolute
and it has to be forwarded with earliest despatch which intention is implicit in the use of the word
'forthwith'. It has dual purpose : firstly to avoid the possibility of improvement in the prosecution story
and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultation and secondly to enable the
Magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress of investigation34.

(i) "Report"-Meaning of.- The word "report" is not defined in the Code, but it appears that the
Legislature has stubiously attached to the expression "police report" a peculiar meaning throughout the
Code whenever the expression occurs, and has carefully specified the purposes for which and the
occasions when the police are empowered to make reports as to offences committed or threatened, and
when they travel beyond them, their reports cease to have the privilege conferred upon them by the Code
and can only come within the definition of the "complaint" in section 2 (d), which is wide enough to
include them. Section 157 provides for a police report as to information received about an offence, but
before investigation of it. Section 173 provides for a report after completion of the investigation and
showing the results of it. The report to be sent to the Magistrate under section 157 is generally known as
"occurrence report".

(ii) Failure or delay by police to send report.- In cognizable cases, it is the duty of the officer-in-charge
of a police station to send a copy of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate having jurisdiction "forthwith" and then
proceed to investigate. The Magistrate must insist upon the submission of the F.I.R. to him the moment
they are received and put the actual date of the said receipt and not the date on which it was received by
the court sub-inspector. In common parlance, the word "forthwith" will mean "immediately without loss
of time or delay". There is no justification in putting off the communication of the F.I.R. to a working day
as what is contemplated by section 157 is forwarding the report "forthwith" to the Magistrate and not to
the court. Not sending the report to the Magistrate expeditiously on the ground that a particular date is not
a working day is not justified. The expression used is "forthwith" and this requirement should not be
taken lightly since it is intended to safeguard the interests of the accused and to plug the possibility of
creating the F.I.R. after consultation and deliberation35. The sending of an "occurrence report" to a
Magistrate is a step which is an essential preliminary under the section to the commencement of an
investigation. Failure to send to the Magistrate the report required by section 157(1), and also by the

34
Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 ACrR 198 (SC).
35
26 Bom 150 (157)
police manual, is a serious neglect of duty which may lead to failure of justice. Such conduct on the part
of the police would lead to a grave suspicion that the police were concocting false evidence. One of the
objects of sending forthwith a copy of the report to the Magistrate is no doubt to guard against any
concoction in the prosecution case and it is really designed to keep the Magistrate informed of the
investigation of cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and, if necessary, to give
appropriate direction under section 159. But failure to do so will not be always destructive of it, and each
case shall have to be decided on its own peculiar facts. However, there can be no prejudice to the accused
on account of the omission to send the report and section 157 does not prescribe report to Magistrate as a
condition precedent to investigation of a cognizable offence. But in a case of murder, the non-recording of
the substance of the information in the daily diary register and not sending the copies of the F.I.R. to the
Magistrate of the area will render the prosecution case unacceptable, particularly when the evidence of the
so-called eyewitnesses is not reliable.

If the report is not sent "forthwith" as required under section 157, it cannot be said that circumstance
would be fatal to the whole prosecution. But the police should not cause any delay in sending the F.I.R. to
the Magistrate and the Magistrate should also take note of it as soon as it reaches him. If the delay in
sending the report is not deliberate, it is immaterial. If the F.I.R. is actually recorded without delay and the
investigation started on the basis of that F.I.R. and there is no other infirmity, then, however improper or
objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned, it cannot by itself justify the
conclusion that the investigation is tainted and the prosecution unsupportable, unless some prejudice is
shown to have been caused to the accused by such delay. However, if the delay in sending the report is
extraordinary and no explanation is offered for the same, this is a circumstance which provides a
legitimate basis for suspecting the prosecution case. A long delay in sending the report throws a
reasonable doubt about the genuineness of the time and date of the recording of the first information
report. If there is delay of two days and there is no explanation for the same, it may raise suspicion.

Though, the F.I.R. becomes doubtful when prompt compliance of provision of section 157, is not shown,
but non-compliance with the direction of section 157, that F.I.R. should be forwarded to the Magistrate
"forthwith" need not necessarily provide room for inference that F.I.R. is concocted.

At the same time, laches or negligence or indolence on the part of the police in despatch of the F.I.R. in
terms of section 157, cannot put cloud of suspicion on the story as unfolded and told. It would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Quite often there is a valid reason for the delay in the despatch of the first information report and it is not
always a circumstance on the basis of which the entire prosecution may be said to be fabricated, but it all
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In some cases delay may lead to serious
consequences.45 If this report is received by the Magistrate late, it can give rise to the inference that the
F.I.R. was not lodged at the time it is alleged to be recorded, unless of course, the prosecution can offer a
satisfactory explanation for the delay. However absence of seal on the copy will not make any difference
when the copy was signed by the Magistrate. Where there was delay of four hours in sending the report
the Supreme Court held that the ideal situation is that F.I.R. is sent to Magistrate with utmost speed but if
it is not so done the corollary is not castigation of the evidence of informer. No police station has only one
case to look into. A little delay in lodging the F.I.R. with Magistrate should not be viewed from
unrealistic angle36. Informant stated that she saw the entire incident and went with the body to lodge F.I.R.
Mere delay of three days in receiving F.I.R. by Magistrate will not justify conclusion about the report
having not been written at the date and time indicated in it. Where the court after considering the evidence
found that the report was true, delay in sending it to the Magistrate will not be a ground to doubt the
genuineness of report.

(a) Absence of seal on report. - However absence of seal on the copy will not make any difference when
the copy was signed by the Magistrate.

(iii) Police report is not complaint. - A report submitted in the usual way under sections 157 and 173 is
not intended to be and could not be a complaint within the meaning of section 195. When a police officer
investigates a non-cognizable case under the orders of a Magistrate, the report which he makes at the end
of his investigation is of the same nature as a report made under section 157, and such a report being a
police report is not a 'complaint'. But if a police officer acting without instructions from a Magistrate
reports a non-cognizable offence to a Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action, this is a
complaint.37

(iv) Report by police officer, if public document . - Reports made by a police officer in compliance with
this section are not public documents within the meaning of section 74, Evidence Act and, consequently,
an accused person is not entitled, before trial, to have copies of such reports.

36
Baldeo Singh v. State, 1982 Cr LJ 1087 (J&K).
37
AIR 1931 Pat 150 : 12 PLT 393.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

The object of the penal law is to protect life, liberty and property of the citizen. All citizens who are
victims of crimes punishable under the Indian Penal Code are entitled to be treated fairly, reasonably and
equally. By categorizing large number of offences as non-cognizable, unreasonable burden has been
placed on the citizens by requiring them to investigate the case, collect evidence and produce them before
the Magistrate. The citizen would be also obliged to engage a lawyer to conduct his case as he may not be
familiar with court procedures. Sometimes witnesses will not be willing to co-operate with the
complainant. The complainant would be required to spend a lot of time to investigate. This is not easy for
a private citizen who has no training in investigation. Thus a heavy burden, financial and otherwise is
placed on the victims of non-cognizable offences.

A common citizen is not aware of this artificial distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable
offences. There is a general feeling that if anyone is a victim of an offence the place he has to go for relief
is the police station. It is very unreasonable and awkward if the police were to tell him that it is a non-
cognizable offence and therefore he should approach the Magistrate as he cannot entertain such a
complaint.

It has come to the notice of the Committee that even in cognizable cases quite often the Police Officers do
not entertain the complaint and send the complainant away saying that the offence is not cognizable.
Sometimes the police twist facts to bring the case within the cognizable category even though it is non-
cognizable, due to political or other pressures or corruption. This menace can be stopped by making it
obligatory on the police officer to register never complaint received by him. Breach of this duty should
become an offence punishable in law to prevent misuse of the power by the police officer. The present
classification of offences as cognizable and non-cognizable on the basis of the power to arrest with or
without order of the Magistrate is not based on sound rational criteria. Whether in respect of any offence
arrest should be made with or without the order of the Magistrate must be determined by relevant criteria,
such as the need to take the accused immediately under custody or to prevent him from tampering with
evidence, or from absconding or the seriousness of the crime, and its impact on the society and victim etc.

Because of the burden placed on investigating and producing evidence large number of victims of non-
cognizable offences do not file complaints. They stand deprived and discriminated. This is one of the
reasons for the citizens’ losing faith and confidence in the Criminal Justice System. As justice is the right
of every citizen it is not fair to deny access to justice to a large section of citizens by classifying certain
offences as non-cognizable. Law should provide free and equal access to all victims of crimes. This can
be done by removing the distinction between cognizable and noncognizable offences for the purpose of
investigation of cases by the Police Officer.

Considerable time of court is now being spent in dealing with registration of complaints regarding non-
cognizable offences. The time saved can be utilized for dealing with other judicial work. This may
contribute to more aggrieved persons filing complaints thereby increasing the work-load of the police. As
the state has the primary duty to maintain law and order, this cannot be a good reason against the
proposed reform. Another apprehension is that this may encourage false and frivolous complaints. An
experienced police officer will not find it difficult to summarily dispose of such frivolous complaints
without undue waste of time.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Books referred:-

2. 1.Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s , the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, 2013.

3. SN Misra, The Code of Criminal procedure 1973, 2013.
4. Durga Das Basu, The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, 2017.
5. The Criminal procedure code 1973.

Websites referred:-

1. Indian Kanoon org.

2. Manupatrafast.in