 We have been day in and day out reading regarding the investigation, inquiry and trial. But is there any difference between this two? Because once we say investigation also means it is more or less like an investigation. But what is the difference between them? When does the commencement and conclusion of investigation, inquiry and trial actually is the today's legal journey which would be taken across by Justice Sunil Thomas, a former judge of Kerala High Court. And those who have been connected with the Honourable CLC would have seen that Justice Sunil Thomas takes very neat areas which are not being taken up in the routine. And whenever we discuss him and make a request to him, he says that give some topic which interests the public at large and which is normally not carried out, professionally and personally everybody can understand the legal journey and how they can enrich themselves. In this journey of legal empowerment, we are indebted to Justice Sunil Thomas and thank you sir for accepting our advice. I'm extremely happy to once again join you in the program organized by CLC. The topic that has been allowed to me today is investigation, inquiry and trial. When does it commence and when does it come to an end? So my endeavor in this session will be to just emphasize on the concepts of investigation, inquiry and trial and also to analyze as to whether there are three separate compartments. You know that these three aspects investigation, inquiry and trial are the three important distinct steps of editable prosecution. So whether we should understand whether is it investigation separate watertight compartment and then is it inquiry like that and also trial. And also whether on completion of investigation whether inquiry starts and on completion of inquiry whether the trial starts, is it so distinct separate entities. As you all know, the term trial is not defined under the code of group procedure. We will be emphasizing on the existing act and we are not referring to the Bairdhya Nagarik Suresh Sambhila of 2020. This is said to be coming to force but so but the principles remain the same. On the other hand the term investigation and the term inquiry both are defined under the code of group procedure. 2-H defines what is an investigation. Investigation as the term denotes is every proceeding for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or any other person interested, authorized by the magistrate under the act. So the definition is very clear. Definition speaks about the person who is to conduct the investigation. It is either a police officer or a person authorized by the magistrate. The object of investigation is to collect evidence for a criminal person or a successful criminal prosecution. That puts the second definition is very clear. On the other hand, if you refer to the definition of inquiry what we find is that inquiry is every proceeding under the act. Other conducted by a magistrate or a court other than a trial. Which we can say that the definition is an exclusive definition which excludes or it excludes trial but does not specifically indicate as to what exactly is an inquiry. But the law is always settled as what is meant by investigation when does it come in, when does it come to an end, when does the inquiry start, when does it come to an end and when does the trial commence. Regarding investigation which is the first aspect of every criminal prosecution. It starts with the provisions under chapter 12 of the code of group procedure which deals with investigation and also information to the police and the investigation. The crucial section is section 154 CRPC which deals with giving first information to the police and we normally call it as the first information report. Section 154 enables an officer in charge of a police station to record information obtained by him in relation to the congressional facts. That is the first part of the investigation process that sets in normally or broadly the investigative process, investigation process. The scope of section 154 and what is the significance of it is dealt with by the Supreme Court in one decision, Sheikh Hazi Elias Tabarak who is the state of Bihar, 1972-4 SCC 773. According to the Supreme Court the first information report can have two aspects can be looked up from two angles. The first one is the process of from the viewpoint of the first informant. It says that the first information report as far as the first informant is concerned that sets the investigative missionary in motion. According to the Supreme Court it can also be looked up from the angle of the investigating agency as the collection of materials regarding the incident or regarding the cognizable offense which will enable the investigative agency to go ahead with the investigation so that the first information obtained is so valid so it is significant so as to set in the investigative mission. So that gives an indication as to how when does an investigation start, investigation commence. There is one more decision which is the latest business of the Supreme Court on this point. I will give you the citation that is Naseer bin Abu Bakr F5. Naseer bin Abu Bakr F5 who is the state of Maharashtra 2022-06 SCC page 308. Dealing with the scope of first information Supreme Court said that it is the line of decisions is well settled to the effect that the process of investigation commenced with the FIA, lodging of the FIA. But Supreme Court in this case, in Naseer bin's case, went a step ahead and said that mere lodging of the FIA cannot be treated as the commencement of the investigation process. But first to the lodging of the FIA, the investigative missionary said in motion when the police officer proceeds, there is something in furtherance of the FIA and proceeds to the sale of the clearance, arrest the accused or record the statement. So that mere lodging, what the Supreme Court clarified was that though a law is settled that the investigative process commences with the lodging of FIA, there must be some step in furtherance of lodging of FIA by way of proceeding to the scene of occurrence or recording the statement of the witnesses or arresting the accused. That only sets the investigative missionary in motion. So this is the law. And once it is set in motion, the officer in charge of the police station goes to conducts the local inspection, questions the witnesses, prepares the mahasar, arrests the accused and on completion of investigation, files a file to put on the section 173 of the CFS. Broadly, this brings the investigation part to an end. Under the CPC, there may not be so much complication on this aspect as to the commencement of the investigation and the conclusion of it, though even after, even after filing the final report, there may be instance of further investigation so that investigation may have to continue under orders of the court. That's a different aspect. But when we go to other penal provisions, we find some difficulty. I will take you to one decision of the Supreme Court which specifically dealt with this issue under the other statutory provisions, other penal laws. That classic decision is state of UP versus Durga Prasad, state of UP versus Durga Prasad, 1975, 3 SCC 210, state of UP versus Durga Prasad, 1975, 3 SCC 210. That was a case where one person was found in possession of goods relating to items, articles belonging to the railway. He was arrested under the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act of 1966 on an allegation that he was found in possession of articles belonging to the railway. The officer in charge questioned him, recovered the article from him and conducted an inquiry under Section 8-1 of the Railway Property Act 1966. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. All the statements were got signed by the investigation officer. And on completion of investigation, the report was also laid, complete was laid before the magistrate. Accused fails the trial. In the course of trial, all the statements recorded by the investigation officer, Rivelle Police, were introduced in evidence. Relying on it, he was found guilty. He was convicted. This was challenged before the high court. The view of the high court was that if statement of the witnesses were recorded in the course of examination of the witnesses, their statements were recorded and they were got signed by the police. So it amounted to recording of a statement under Section 162 of the CRPC and the trial court also relied on such statements. According to the high court, it was hit by the bar under Section 162 since signed statements were taken from the witnesses and those materials were relied on by the trial court for convicting the accused. The court held that it was an improper procedure with evidence was recorded in violation of the provisions of the code of rule procedure in violation of Section 162 and he was acquitted. That was challenged before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court in the state of UP versus Durga Prasad relied on the several early decisions. What the Supreme Court held was that an inquiry was conducted under Section 81 of the Rainway Properties Act. Such an inquiry was followed by the various other proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that under the Rainway Property Act there was no provision for laying a fine report by the authority under Section 173 and he also does not file a report under Section 191B of the CRPC that the agency which recovered the item and recovered the statement and conducted the inquiry under Section 81 of the Rainway Property Act was not in fact conducting an investigation as contemplated under the rule procedure so that the bar under Section 162 will not apply. The court said that in such cases the trial court was justified in relying on the signed statements of the witnesses and arriving at a conclusion. The court also said apart from other signed statements there were other materials incriminating materials based on which the accused could have been convicted. So that what the Supreme Court held in that case was that the inquiry conducted by under Section 81 of the Rainway Property Act was not an investigation under as contemplated under the code of rule procedure so that though it has got some trappings of an investigation as provided under the CRPC that did not exactly satisfy the test of an investigation so thereby the conviction was sustained. So there are some differences in the case of other statutes in relation to the process of inquiry or investigation conducted by such authorities. Supreme Court referred to some of its early decisions which I have also referred to one of the important decisions which the Supreme Court relied on was an earlier decision in State of Punjab versus Barkat Rao, State of Punjab versus Barkat Rao. AR 1962 SC 276 in that inquiry was conducted under the provisions of the Land Customs Act of 1924. The Supreme Court in that decision helped that the inquiry conducted by the investigative agent by the competent authority under the act was not conducting an investigation under the CRPC so that they would not be considered as an investigation. That decision in State of Punjab versus Barkat Rao was followed by another Supreme Court decision in Raja Ram Jay Swal versus State of Bihar. Raja Ram Jay Swal versus State of Bihar AR 1964 SC 824. Raja Ram Jay Swal versus State of Bihar AR 1964 SC 828. That was a prosecution under the Bihar and Odisha Excise Act. The Supreme Court followed the earlier decision in Barkat Rao's case and said that the steps taken by the authority under the Excise Act was not conducting an investigation as conducted later under the code of court procedure. Yet another decision of the Supreme Court on the same point was but to Jyoti Savad but to be ADKU but to Jyoti J-O-T-I Jyoti Savad versus State of Mysore 1966 SCR 658 that was a proceeding under the Central Excise and Salt Act. The same view as laid down by the Supreme Court earlier in Barkat Rao was followed and made a distinction between an inquiry or investigation conducted under the such Excise Act from a criminal prosecution and investigation conducted under the CRP. The next important decision on this point is a constitutional bench decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Mehta who is the State of West Bengal AR 1970 SC 940 AR 1970 SC 940. The same view as followed in Barkat Rao and the 62 decisions were followed by the constitutional bench under the C Customs Act. So that was a prosecution under the C Customs Act. So these were the three decisions laid out by the Supreme Court in Durga Prasad's case referred to in Supreme Durga Prasad's case. So all of all those decisions laid out the same proposition under the other statutes even though certain inquiry or an investigation may be conducted by the authorities it may not be strict or censor be transferred as an investigation under the Supreme Court. Then comes the latest decision of the Supreme Court in under the NDPS Act in Tophan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu Tophan Singh TOFAN Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu AR 2020 5592. That was the case where one person was prosecuted under section 67 of the Narcotic Drug Set Psychopathic Substance Act. The question came up was one of the questions that came up with the Supreme Court was whether the Confession Statement recorded by the officer under the NDPS Act would amount to a confession as recorded under the Kodakurva Teacher. Incidentally the question whether it forms part of the investigating machinery was also taken up. Supreme Court said deviating from all the earlier decisions held that a statement recorded a confession recorded under section under the NDPS Act would strictly not be advisable and bar under the Kodakurva procedure and Indian Evidence Act will apply. Then comes two important decisions of the Supreme Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act PMLA Act. Those two latest decisions are under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act or Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary versus Union of India. Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary versus Union of India 2022 SCC online SC 929 Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary versus Union of India 2022 SCC online SC 929 page 929 the second decision is on the same under the same act that's in Chandil Balaji Chandil Balaji versus state represented by the director 2023 SCC online page 934 I'll repeat the citation Chandil Balaji versus state represented by the director 2023 SCC online SC 934 along with the various other issues involved the question as to whether what is the status of inquiry or investigation conducted by the authorities under the PMLA Act and whether the bar under the CRPC or under the Evidence Act may apply. What the Supreme Court held in both the decisions was that under the PMLA Act the main objective of prostituting a person and conducting an inquiry or inquiry or investigation under the PMLA was not exclusively for the purpose of prostituting the most crucial aspect of the act is to ensure that or to prohibit money laundering and for that purpose various mechanisms are contemplated under the statute one is prostitution the other one is attachment of the property which forms part of the tainted money so that multifarious activities are taken and conducted under the under the PMLA Act so that materials may be gathered in the course of inquiry and investigation by the investigating agency and all those materials may not be intended to achieve the object of prosecution so that what the Supreme Court ultimately held was that under the PMLA Act the investigative machinery may be gathering information may be gathering materials may be gathering evidence that is not the sole for the sole purpose of prostituting the accused so that the court said it may be for the purpose of confining or confirming an attachment of the property that does not mean that it is a material gather for the purpose of prosecution or in other words the Supreme Court laid down a distinction between materials gathered in the course of investigation for the purpose of prosecution and materials gathered in the for the other purposes or ancillary purposes contemplated under the PMLA Act thereby made a distinction and Supreme Court said both the mechanisms may go ahead may collect the same materials but their objects are totally different one object of one missionary may be to prosecute the accused the other may be for other purposes of prevention of money laundering so both travel together both collect the same materials but the objectives are two different things so that it laid down a distinction between an investigative machinery and gathering of information for other purposes contemplated under the PMLA Act so one thing there that you are clear with reference to the decisions which I referred to now from Durga Prasad's case till Tophan's case and thereafter Shendil Balaji's case the only lone case that stands apart seems to be Tophan Singh's case justification is also there because under the MDPS Act which which was dealt with by Tophan in Tophan Singh's case it was solely for the purpose of prosecuting the accused in all other statutes which were basically involving fiscal aspects under the SALT Act, under the exercise Act, under the customs Act or even under the PMLA Act. Prosecutional accused is only one part of the object of the statute probably that must be the reason why the Supreme Court made a distinction in Tophan Singh's case when it was dealing with NDPS Act so this gives a clear idea so that even though under the under the CRP issue investigation is done after after a registering an FIR and normally concludes with an investigation now with the file file file report it may not be exactly the same under other statutes which may be fiscal statutes or other statutes like NDPS Act, like PMLA Act, like the C customs Act or under the SALT Act this we use some distinction so that gives an idea regarding the investigation part then we go to the next topic inquiry. Inquiry is defined under section 2 G of the Act of the Court which defines inquiry as a inquiry conducted by a magistrate or by a judge other than a trial. So normally we make a broad distinction between an investigation and an inquiry. Normally it is said that process of inquiry starts with the laying of the file report it goes on till the process of trial starts so that when you compare investigation with an inquiry what you find is that inquiry investigation is not a judicial process whereas an inquiry is a judicial process. Investigation is done by the police whereas inquiry is conducted by the court of a magistrate. Another distinction can be that the purpose of an investigation is for collection of evidence. The object of inquiry as contemplated under the court of court procedure is to complete the steps for trial and to ensure that there are materials have been gathered for a successful prosecution or that no person has been wrongly implicated. So it is a broad inquiry conducted by the magistrate or by the court and the relevant approach is chapter 24 of the court of court procedure which deals with inquiries and trial. I will just refer two decisions one of the Supreme Court the other one by the Patna High Court regarding the scope of inquiry. The first decision that I will be referring to is Rithilal Bhanchi Mithani Rithilal R-A-T-I-L-A-L Rithilal Bhanchi Mithani M-I-T-H-A-N-I versus State of Maharashtra and others. The citation is AR 1979 SC 94. The Supreme Court gave broad outline regarding what is meant by an inquiry under the court of court procedure. It helped that an inquiry under the court procedure court is not for the purpose of investigation and normally it starts after the lane of the charge shoot. It continues till the charge is framed. The other decision is Rabindra Rai versus State of Bihar 1984 criminal law journal 1984 criminal law journal 1412 by the Patna High Court. That also gives you a broad outline regarding the scope of inquiry. Now if you go through the provisions of the CRPC though the term inquiry is defined you will find about five types of inquiry contemplated under the court of court procedure. Five types of broad types of inquiry. The first type is the inquiry as contemplated under section 2G which I refer to just now. When you refer to section 159 of the CRPC it also refers to an inquiry when a report is obtained by the magistrate under section 159 of the CRPC, 157 of the CRPC. The magistrate is empowered to conduct an inquiry or a cause to conduct an inquiry invoking section 159 of the CRPC. That will not fall strictly within the ambit of an inquiry as contemplated under section 2G. That stands something apart. Another type of inquiry contemplated under the other types of inquiries contemplated under the court of court procedure are probably an inquiry under section 125 of the CRPC regarding maintenance to be paid. Strictly it is not in relation to an offense. It starts apart court also conducts an inquiry records takes evidence also. Another inquiry which you can find slightly different from the one contemplated under the normal principle is an inquiry conducted under section furnishing bond under section 107 CRPC, 108 CRPC and 109 CRPC. That's a different type of inquiry. The last category of inquiry which is contemplated under the CRPC are inquiries conducted by the district magistrate or subdivision magistrate under section 176 CRPC, 133 proceedings and 145 proceedings. These are strictly not in relation to inquiry conducted under the CRPC but when they start strictly fall within an inquiry conducted under 2G maybe that way we can make a broad distribution. Now we go to yet another term which always come across when we deal with the inquiry that is the inquiry not the inquiry under the section 1 of section 2G but an inquiry ENPUIROI. I have come across several books where the term is intermingly used and the term inquiry is not defined as such under the CRPC. It contemplates only an inquiry but you will find the term inquiry distinctly used under several other statutes. One typical example can be section 17A of the Provincial Correction Act. Section 17A of the Provincial Correction Act says that no inquiry, inquiry or investigation shall be conducted under the Provincial Correction Act unless prior sanction is obtained in relation to a decision taken by a government servant in certain cases that the section 17A of the Provincial Correction Act specifically refers to the term inquiry and not an inquiry. Both the terms are used inquiry inquiry and lastly investigation. Another statute where you will find the term inquiry used is under section 67 of the NDPS Act. Strangely, you will find the term inquiry is used under section 67 of the NDPS Act and inquiry used in section 53A of the NDPS Act and this was the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in Tofansin's case. The purpose of these two distinct words used in section 53A as well as under section 67 was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Tofansin's case in detail. What is the purpose of using the term inquiry and the term inquiry which is the term used in the CRPC? This is the Indira Banerjee who gave a minority decision in that judgment also specifically referred one paragraph on this aspect and what does an inquiry mean? Referring to a concise dictionary, the Supreme Court said that inquiry means to ask whereas inquiry has contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure and also used in several statutes as INQIRY means to conduct an investigation. Both have similar terms but in the Tofansin's case, the majority decision as well as the minority decision dealt with this distinction and said that the terms inquiry and inquiry have been contra-distantly used in the NDPS Act with purpose and that was the base on which one aspect of the decision was dealt with. So keep that in mind just for your information. Then we go to the last part of the topic that is when does the trial start? The commencement or regarding the commencement of trial there is almost a consistent view that it starts with laying of the final report. The trial starts with the laying of the final report and you all know that fourth specific chapters are provided under the CRPC. Chapter 18 which deals with trial before the sessions go. Chapter 19 which deal with trial of war cases by magistrate. Chapter 20 which deals with trial of war summons cases by the magistrate and lastly chapter 21 which deals with summary procedure, summary trial. The normal concept is that in the case of a trial before sessions go and trial before warring cases under chapter 19 trial commences with the charges being framed. In the case of trial by summons case when the accused is called upon to say whether he believes guilty or not and in the case of summary procedure when the summary of the charges went over to the accused. I will take you to few decisions of the Supreme Court were in the question of commencement of trial was consulant by the Supreme Court. The first decision and the most important decision I will say is in Hardeep Singh who is the state of Punjab that's the constitutional bench decision of the five judges of the Supreme Court. Hardeep Singh who is the state of Punjab 2014 3 SCC 92 it affirmed that trial commences with the framing of the charges. That was the first most important decision on the topic then comes a 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinu by Hari Bhai Malaguya. Vinu Bhai Hari Bhai Malaguya who is the state of Gujarat 2019 SCC online 2019 SCC online 3446 I'm sorry 1346 1346 the Supreme Court was reading with the question of further investigation. Supreme Court said normally further investigation can be ordered only before the trial commences and incidentally held the trial commences with the framing of the charges. It was in that context the question where as to when the trial starts trial commences was dealt with by the Supreme Court. The next decision on the point is a 2017 decision in Amrita Bhai Amrita Bhai Shampu Bhai Patel versus Subhan Bhai Kanthi Bhai Patel 2017 4 SCC 1 double 7 the same point trial commences with the framing of the charges. Then another decision of the same point which I referred this is which I referred to earlier was in Rithilal Banji Mithaini which I mentioned earlier Rithilal Banji Mithaini. One more decision which he suddenly referred to the commencement of trial is in the common cost case common cost versus union of India a year 1979 SC 1539 and it is and the process of trial as we all know comes to an end on the pronouncement of rejections. So these are the broad outlines which I wanted to emphasize the investigation the commencement of investigation and the conclusion of it the commencement of inquiry and the conclusion and the commencement of trial and the conclusion of it broadly we can say that the distinction is so clear but at same time aspects of inquiry and as well as and investigation they slightly overlap otherwise it is almost clear so these are the topics that I am expected to discuss with you so Mr. Vigas now it is open for discussion now. Now one question that has come up is yes please Mr. Vigas. Yes sir I am just checking it out it is on the chat also. The primary inquiry under Lilladha Gumairi's case. Yes and I am checking it out on the YouTube. In Lilladha Gumairi what the speedboat said was that normally on getting an information under the regard to a cognizable offense the officer in charge of the police is bound to conduct the issue register FIA but at the same time a very limited scope for an inquiry there are also the terms used this INQ inquiry has contemplated and limited inquiry that is only to ensure only to ensure if the preliminary material the primary materials are not available to completely disclose commission of a cognizable offense a very limited inquiry is possible and the Supreme Court also said that there are other instances when the court when the inquiry officer will have some freedom some leave ways to go for a preliminary inquiry that may be a case under the Provincial Corruption Act. So the scope as laid down in Supreme Court is very very limited in relation to the primary inquiry in the solution and virtually it is a primary inquiry before the inquiry investigation starts that's how it has been clarified in Lilladha Gumairi's case. So any other doubt Mr. Vigas? No sir I was just checking it out it's not relevant on the YouTube there's one query but it is not with the topic today okay okay so thank you sir for sharing your knowledge and thank despite this issue you have been kind enough to share your knowledge thank you everyone stay safe stay blessed thank you thank you so much to all of you