 Good evening, one and all. And after the declaration of the results with which everyone was glued, we thought that why not take a person on the platform who can make us glued at the same time when we are syncing with the results coming from India from different states, especially from Kerala and we have the resource person from Kerala. Justice V. Ramkumar as such requires no introduction. He has been on our platform coupled with today we are also glad that the co-organizers of the NITLs where they have been organizing different sessions that is Mr. Prem Raj Menon and Shyam Padman have also joined today. And today Mr. KVJ Rao who is also an aviation expert is amongst us before we take session forward on the post-cognizance magistrate inquiry in a private complaint. I would request Mr. KVJ Rao to introduce the topic and then we will ask Justice Ramkumar to take the questions which in his usual style he has shared the questions which we have shared in the WhatsApp group so that we can take things forward. Over to you Mr. Rao. Thanks a lot. Good evening everybody. This is a subject that is close to the heart of Justice Ramkumar and basically taking cognizance has created a lot of confusion among a lot of people and addressing that is the best thing and know a better person than Justice Ramkumar because he is what would I say if we candle to the sun it would be what I'd say because he is an encyclopedia on taking cognizance and why it is important is there's a lot of confusion as to when does taking cognizance start and that is very beautifully explained and articulated by Justice Ramkumar. So I think we should begin. I hand over the thing to Mr. Ramkumar Justice Ramkumar to start the program. Thanks Rikas. Thank you. Thank you Mr. KVJ Rao. Good evening friends. Last time it has already been seen that when on receiving a private complaint the magistrate applies his mind for the purpose of proceeding under chapter 15 CRPC starting with section 200 onwards he can legitimately be said to have taken cognizance of the offense regarding a private complaint. We also notice that the actual recording of the zone treatment is not necessary for anyone to say that magistrate has taken cognizance because the crucial thing is the decision taken to proceed under chapter 15. Once he has taken that decision, we can clearly say that the magistrate has taken cognizance of the offense. Now today we will discuss all the matters which a magistrate has to bear in mind while conducting an inquiry under section 200 to 202 CRPC. Now shall we pass on to the questions? Before that I think I will explain what is inquiry. What is inquiry? See inquiry the definition under section 2GCRPC is not very helpful because it only says inquiry means every inquiry other than a trial conducted under this code by a magistrate or court. So inquiry is inquiry other than trial that is the definition not very helpful but I will tell you the reason why the definition is so vaguely given. In paragraph 25 of a constitutional bench decision in Hardeep Singh versus state of Punjab 2014 volume 3 SCC 92 corresponding to AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1400 if I judge the bench of the Supreme Court observed as follows. The stage of inquiry commences in so far as the court is concerned with the filing of the charge sheet and the consideration of the materials collected by the prosecution that is mentioned in the charge sheet for the purpose of trying the accused. So the inquiry has been explained by the constitution bench to say that it commences the moment the charge sheet is filed before the court or the magistrate and the magistrate applies his mind to the materials produced along with the charge sheet. But this is not a very elaborate definition because the bench was constitution bench was observing regarding the scope of inquiry in a police investigation case. There can be inquiry not only in a police investigation case but also in a private complaint case. Therefore the inquiry even during the this is not a case where inquiry that is why the legislature has left it in a hazy way because inquiry that we generally understand starts with the filing of the charge sheet but there can be inquiry even during the course of investigation. For example recording of a confession or a statement under section 154 it can be during the course of investigation. It is not after the filing of the charge sheet ordinarily. Therefore it can still it is inquiry. Likewise tendering pardon to an accomplice under section 306 CRPC that is also usually taking place during the course of investigation. Of course it can take place even after that but when it takes place during the course of investigation you can't say that inquiry starts only after the charge sheet is filed. Inquiry can commence even before that. Then what about test identification parade? Test identification parade conducted by a magistrate is also part of inquiry. He is applying his mind and deciding the whole proceedings. Then again in a larger sense I would say that even bail application during the crime stage during the investigation stage there also involves inquiry because magistrate has to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances case and to decide whether the accused should be bailed out or not. For example if it is under section 167 magistrate will have to take two decisions. One if he is the nearest magistrate having no jurisdiction to try the case and if the accused is produced before him the magistrate will have to decide whether he should be remanded to custody or not for that he will have to peruse the FIR, the diary extract, the remand application etc. Supposing the magistrate after perusing them comes to the conclusion that no no he this is a false I think it's a false case. He should be bailed out. He should be granted bail. Can the nearest magistrate who is not the jurisdiction magistrate grant bail? He cannot. The nearest magistrate who is not a jurisdiction magistrate cannot grant bail. So he will have to apply his mind and then only he will have to forward the accused to the magistrate having jurisdiction as mentioned in section 167 to CRPC. These are all applications these are all situations where he has to apply his mind then ordering investigation under section 156-3 CRPC initially Supreme Court said that he is only a post office but now Supreme Court has said that he has to apply his mind and even the requirements in the statute has been added by judicial verdicts by saying that even an affidavit has to be filed etc. Therefore these are all situations where the magistrate will have to apply his mind so according to me in a larger sense it is also inquiry. Therefore inquiry can need not necessarily start only after the filing of the charge sheet it can take place even before that. Then in the case of a private complaint what about the ones the complaint is filed taking cognizance of offense. It's also an inquiry what of inquiry is then conducting an inquiry under 202. 202 itself is worded as inquiry. Then what about dismissal of the complaint under section 203. All requires an application of mind by the magistrate. Therefore inquiry is not that that is why probably the legislature has left it there so that if the legislature were to say that inquiry starts only after the investigation then there are there are cases where or situations where inquiry can be there even before during investigation. Then when does inquiry stop the normal inquiry which is started after the filing of the charge sheet or after the filing of the private complaint stops with the commencement of trial. Inquiry starts with the commencement of trial. There's a Kerala decision which says that proceedings up to the framing of charges in the nature of inquiry and inquiry stops when the trial starts. 1975 KLT 703 1975 KLT 703 that is in the state of Kerala which is Achizapanikiyam. Then there are two rulings of the Supreme Court where they say that trial it distinct to trial it distinct from inquiry and inquiry must always be a forerunner forerunner to the trial that is it it should precede the trial. Vidyadaran versus state of Kerala, Aya 2004 Supreme Court 536 and Moli versus state of Kerala Aya 2004 Supreme Court 1890. Incidentally I may mention that these two decisions were overruled by a three judge bench on a different point not on this point but these the in these two decisions the SCST atrocities act special judge had tried the offender without the accused being committed to it, committed to it before the amendment of the section 14 of the SCST atrocities act. There the the accused did not raise any objection and he underwent the trial he was convicted then he when we approved the Supreme Court Supreme Court held in these two decisions that the trial without a commitment was bad. This was overruled by a three judge bench in Ratiram versus state of Madhya Pradesh Aya 2012 Supreme Court 1485 three judges they said that no it is only an irregularity curable irregularity especially in a case where the accused accused had undergone the trial without any dumber without any objection he had undergone the trial therefore he cannot turn around when the case goes against him when he is convicted he cannot turn around and say that no no this was a case where the the the uh committal was there was no committal therefore the trial is bad no this is what the this this is the broad outline regarding inquiry now which we will pass on to the questions. Sir the pleasing news is that uh that facebook live has started off I was saying that since yesterday because I was receiving the message since yesterday that first the facebook page will not operate but that's okay fine and the another pleasing news is that uh we are approximately four only one seat is vacant in the platform and the question is uh and we are doing well on the youtube also. Supposing in a given case the complainant has four witnesses to speak about his case but while submitting the complaint the complainant and two of his witnesses alone are present is it necessary for the magistrate to direct the complainant to produce the remaining witnesses also to section 200 CRPC. Not necessary because but that's what the section itself says a magistrate taking cognizance of an offense on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present he may be having so many witnesses but at the time of recording this whole statement the complainant has only two witnesses present the obligation of the magistrate is only to examine them not not to call upon the complainant to produce other witnesses which he may do during 202 enquiry yes it's not necessary question 2. Sir my question would be answered in that section itself but still um it's regarding examination of complainant and witnesses by the magistrate under section 200 the question is should the magistrate administer oath to the complainant and the witnesses who are present while examining them under section 200 CRPC. You are right the section itself says that they may be examined upon oath shall examine upon oath upon oath that is why we loosely called recording of this sworn statement sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses that is because they are examined on oaths yes next question. Next question again as question number 2 the answer itself is there in the section should the recorded statement under section 200 CRPC be signed by the statement given. Because there are some some may have a doubt that this is since this is not actually recording of evidence during trial should the statement giver sign the statement yes section itself says he should sign yes because yeah should the magistrate sign the recorded statement yes statement giver has to sign magistrate also has to sign is there in the section itself is only to remove any doubt lingering doubt that this question was good yes sir my doubt is regarding the exception possible that is can the magistrate dispense with the examination of the complainant and the witnesses in any category of cases and if so which are they there are three categories of cases in which the magistrate may dispense with the examination the complainant and his witnesses those categories are one if the complaint is made in writing given by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty for example that is that is under the clause a of the proviso to section 200 for example a a complaint by a public servant who is alleging an offense under section three two of the epidemic diseases act 1897 we are now in the corona pandemic days the the central act 1897 had relevance only or short into relevance only when the corona corona investigation came so when there is the section three two says when a public servant is often or is disturbed or is disobeyed by a person on a public place regarding his his direction then it shall be deemed that he has committed an offense under section 188 of the Indian penal code section 188 of the Indian penal code is an offense which can be which is which can be committed by a before a public servant now this epidemic diseases act contains a a presumption and once there is a disobedience it shall be presumed that an offense under 18 section 188 of the Indian penal code has been committed then what is the position under the CRPC section 188 falls under section 1951 a section 1951 a CRPC there even though it is a cognizable offense as per the schedule first schedule to CRPC police cannot register a crime or conduct investigation because the section 1951 a specifically says the the code can take cognizance only on a complaint by the public servant therefore the public servant has to give a complaint there cannot be any final report police charge therefore police cannot register a crime or etc but as I got last year had taken that police shall not register any FIR with regard to these offenses falling under section 1951 a then the second category is if the complaint may is made in writing by a court for example supposing supposing an offense is committed an offense falling under section 1951 b CRPC has been committed during the proceedings before a court the the the person who is aggrieved by the offense cannot straight away lord j complaint he can only move the court or the court can so motto lord j complaint after prefer preferably conducting an inquiry under section 340 CRPC and it is the court which has to give the complaint in these cases the examination of the court the sole statement of the court need not be shall not be taken there is an exemption for the court also then the third category of cases where so statement need not be recorded is where the magistrate makes over the case for inquiry by to another magistrate the magistrate makes over the case for inquiry before another magistrate falling under clause b of the proviso to section 200 in that case also the magistrate to whom the case is made over he he only he need a examine the complainant and the witnesses the magistrate who has who has made over the complaint need not examine the complainant of the witness these are the three categories of cases where not understanding the main portion in the section 200 the the complainant need the sole statement of the complainant or his witnesses need not be recorded by the magistrate thank you sir so my question that would be with regard to the interpretation of clause 8 to the first proviso to section 200 the question would be there's a long-standing dispute between a district collector and his brother-in-law who is a sub inspector in the police station secreted near the collector's official cartels one night while the collector was having a straw on the public road in front of the courtyard of his cartels the fore said brother-in-law suddenly emulsed and abused the collector and slapped and twisted him when people gathered the offender escape the very next day the district collector goes to the magistrate's court and submits a complaint about the above incident should not the magistrate dispense with the recording of the sole statement of the district collector who is a public servant we have seen that if it's a complaint isn't writing by a public servant his sole statement need not be recorded but please please bear in mind it is not merely it is not enough that he is a public servant public servant acting public servant um acting in discharge of his official duty he should have been discharging his official duty here he was not discharging his official duty true he is a public servant true he is the district collector but this was some private dispute between him and his brother-in-law therefore he was not discharging his official duty therefore that part of the proviso is not attracted therefore he will have to give a written complaint yes am i clear yes sir in which situations is an inquiry under section 202 of CRPC mandatory there are two situations where inquiry under section 202 is mandatory one is where the accused is residing beyond the territorial limits of the magistrate if any of the in the complaint the any of the accused is residing beyond the territorial limits of the magistrate this is an amendment brought in brought into section 202 with effect from 23 uh 2006 2006 and until then this amendment was not there this portion was not there after 23 6 2006 if any of the accused in the private complaint is residing beyond the territorial limits of the magistrate that is beyond the jurisdiction territorial jurisdiction of the magistrate then 202 inquiry is a must he has to proceed under section 202 second situation is where the offense is exclusively triable by a court of session if the offense is triable exclusively by a court of session like murder rape etc then the magistrate has to uh shall it is a mandatory inquiry under section 202 CRPC even though investigation is barred here investigation under section 202 one is barred under the clause a of the proviso to section 202 one he had been but the magistrate shall not not only forward it to the police for investigation but he shall himself conduct the inquiry under section 202 in a case where the offense is triable exclusively by a court of session can anyone say the reason for this can anyone say the reason that could be said for this why is it that in a private complaint alleging commission of an offense exclusively triable by a court of session the magistrate himself should try the offense should come conduct the inquiry and as per the section he should call upon the complainant to examine all his witnesses why is it that see unlike in a police investigation unlike in a police in a police investigation every witness will be questioned by the officer in charge of the police station conducting the investigation under section 161 and his statement will be reduced to writing so that subsequently during trial when the defense lawyer is cross examining each prosecution witness he has already got the material on which he can effectively cross examine the witness but in a private complaint case the the witnesses who are who will be subsequently examined before the session's court the the defense lawyer does not have any material on which he can effectively cross examine the witnesses so it is to actually to provide some material because otherwise the defense will be in a disadvantageous position that is the reason in fact a full bunch of the kerala echoed had taken that view in amani versus state of kerala which was ultimately affirmed by the supreme court i think it is 1998 remraji is already recognized anyway we have to uh acknowledge that uh district jananda krishna avatar he has answered your yes he has come put a comment in the box chat box fine fine sir next question which i would like to address is a subtle distinction or difference between investigation as contemplated under 156 which deals with police officers power to investigate cognizable case and 202 postponement of issue of process my question would be is there any difference between an investigation ordered by the magistrate under section 156 3 crpc and an investigation directed by the magistrate under section 202 1 crpc this is a very vexed question very um in fact very very many judges and lawyers are also in doubt regarding that so many judges so many judicial officers so many advocates have been asking me to uh elucidate the distinction between these two investigations see investigation under section 156 under section 156 3 crpc when a private complaint is filed before a magistrate the magistrate has got the discretion to order an investigation under section 156 3 crpc when such an investigation is ordered the by the very wording of the provision the police officer cannot say that i have got the discretion to come and investigate not of course i will register an fi but i will i have got the discretion under section 157 to commence investigation unless i am uh convinced that in fact nilizahumari the constitution pension nilizahumari also said that even though he is mandatorly required to register an FIR he need comments and investigation only if he is satisfied about he has got the requisite satisfaction under section 157 1 crpc but here is a difference the very the order is for conducting an investigation under section 156 3 crpc therefore the police officer SHO cannot say that i will register an FIR but i the investigation it is my discussion no he is bound to register the FIR and commence investigation that's the mandate of the section and as fortified by the supreme court in madhubala madhubala versus suresh kubar 1990 ar 1997 supreme court 3104 3104 there are other decisions also this is the first decision now in where an investigation is ordered under section 156 3 crpc that complaint will become the first information statement FIR and that will be the registered as FIR and the investigation will proceed accordingly and after the conclusion of investigation under chapter 12 crpc the police officer is bound to file a police report as defined under section 2 r crpc that investigation will end in a police report but in the case of an investigation under section 202 1 there it is not an investigation under chapter 12 it is an investigation under chapter 202 chapter 15 therefore the that investigation will not result in a police report because it is not an investigation chapter 12 therefore the purpose of that investigation is not to file a police report or it will not result in a police report but it is only to aid the magistrate or enable the magistrate to decide whether he should proceed further he should proceed further in the matter by issuing someone etc he has to issue process or not because the very fact that the magistrate crossed over to section 202 because he had recorded this own statement of the complainant and the witnesses he did not straight away issue summons because he had a lingering doubt that the I am doubtful whether the offense is really made out so he crossed over to section 202 crpc then in CRP 202 crpc the investigation order under section 202 1 clause 1 need not necessarily be by the police it can be by a non-police officer it can be even by an advocate I quoted interested in advocate to conduct an investigation therefore it can be even by an advocate that investigation will not necessarily result in a police report because it's not an investigation under chapter 12 therefore that investigation is only to aid the magistrate to decide whether he should proceed further by issuing process or he can dismiss the complaint this is the purpose of that investigation not an investigation under chapter 12 now the resultant position is that the the interdict under section 162 1 crpc is not applicable to an investigation under section 201 crpc because 202 1 crpc because the interdict under section 162 162 crpc I'll read it for you 162 says no statement made by any police any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this chapter 162 says about an investigation under this chapter that is chapter 12 it is only if an investigation under chapter 12 is conducted by the police that the embargo under section 162 1 will apply to those statements but here is an investigation under section 201 202 1 crpc since it is not an investigator under chapter 12 the police officer conducting an investigation can even take signed statements because taking signed statement is prohibited only under 162 section 162 it is in chapter 12 whereas here he can take signed statements and when the case comes up for trial this signed statement like any other previous statement can be subjected to corroboration as well as contradiction whereas a signed statement under section 161 when it comes for trial it can be used only for the purpose of contradiction eliciting a contradiction under section 145 of the evidence act that too in the case of a prosecution witness and that too for the limited purpose of eliciting a contradiction not for corroboration whereas in the case of a statement recorded by a police officer during the investigation ordered by the magistrate under section 201 the police officer can even take signed statements that signed statement is not subject to the interdict under section 162 1 crpc and it can be used not only for contradiction but also for corroboration am i clear this is the distinction between investigation under section 156 1 and 156 and section 201 crpc 202 you you may kindly note their decision national bank of oman versus bhakara abdul assis 2013 to volume 2 acc 4008 as well as chief enforcement officer versus videocone international limited air 2008 supreme court 1213 they have given the distinction between these two investigations and the purpose also yes so my next question again is a public servant who had preferred a written complaint was exempted from examination under section 200 crpc in view of cross a to provide so to section 200 he requests the magistrate to forward his complaint to the police for investigation under section 201 even though the magistrate is willing to accede to the same request the magistrate however directs the examination of the public servant under section 200 the public servant insists that even without examining him under section 200 a direction for investigation under section do not know is to be issued who is right is the public servant or the magistrate the next question because public servant he enjoys the immunity from his own statement being recorded by the magistrate for recording this own statement for at the time of taking cognizance only but for ordering and investigation the only only person who enjoys an exemption from recording this own statement is the court because the answer lies in class b of the proviso to section 202 one crpc the if it is a complaint by a court court alone need be need not examine the witnesses for ordering and investigation under 202 one all other cases including a public servant he will have to be examined his own statement will have to be recorded under section 200 then only the magistrate will be having jurisdiction to forward the complaint to order an investigation under section 202 one crpc am i clear is is is it not open to the accused at the stage of section 200 slash 202 inquiry to participate in the proceedings which are taken against him this is a case in which they there's a private complaint filed against the accused the soon treatment of the complainant and the witnesses are being recorded by the magistrate magistrate in a in a in a particular case crosses over to section 202 inquiry and conducts an inquiry all for finding out whether the accused has committed an offense or not but he's not the accused entitled to participate in the proceedings which is taken against him no the answer is an emphatic no because he is yet to be summoned he has not been summoned by issuance of process under section 204 it's only when he is summoned to the court he becomes an invitee he an invitation card is given to him in the form of a summon then only he is summoned and asked to answer the charge against him until then he has no liability no obligation to answer any allegation against him therefore this is a virtually an expatriate inquiry against him though against him without his participation and supreme court has gone to the extent of saying that even in a given case he happens to be present in court he has no right to participate he can only watch the proceedings that's all what is happening he can look into he cannot engage a council or participate in the proceeding because he is at the pre process stage pre process stage he is yet to be called apart to answer a charge against him the citations are to a 2000 supreme court 1862 then a year 2004 supreme court 1492 and then lastly the constitution bench decision in hardeeb singh's case a year 2014 supreme court 1400 five inches am i clear so my question is pertaining to the concept of evidence under section three of the evidence act my my specific query is uh is the material or is not the material produced during inquiry under sections uh either 200 or 202 evidence now the phone statement is recorded by the magistrate is it evidence is the question in fact you may highly refer to section 191 191 is a case where the magistrate has so more to taken cognizance of an offense the other day we discussed that if the magistrate so motto takes cognizance of an offense which has been committed right in your presence he is virtually in the position of a complainant therefore he has an obligation to tell the accused look look here i have taken cognizance of the offense committed by you in right in my presence you have an option to uh express whether you would like to have the inquiry and trial before another magistrate otherwise the magistrate will be uh the will be violating the maximum no person shall be a judge in his own cause did not therefore the maximum probably prem raj is our rakhna ready rakhna which is that latin maxim mr prem raj nemo judex kosa or something like that yes therefore no man shall be a judge in his own cause so therefore if he if he is to conduct the case himself he has already become a complainant because they he has taken cognizance is often therefore in if you read section 191 it will give an answer for the earlier uh taking cognizance also see when a magistrate takes cognizance of an offense under clause c of subsection one of section 190 the accused shall before any evidence is taken so magistrate has already taken cognizance and then this stage of taking evidence so it is it refers to evidence therefore our question is whether the so so on statement recorded by the magistrate is it not evidence 191 clear it is evidence but what is the use of that evidence what is the use of that evidence this is an evidence recorded behind the back of the accused under section 273 cr pc accused as a statutory right of the evidence being recorded in his presence this is a situation where evidence though it is evidence is recorded behind his back that is why the constitution ben jinn hardip singh's case said that it it may be evidence but it can be it can be used only for the purpose of corroboration when the trial actually takes place but there one statement i have i have some reservation this constitution ben jinn said only corroboration can be used for corroboration why not contradiction why not use it for contradiction also constitution ben jinn says it can be used for corroboration according to me it is like any other previous statement therefore it can be an actual corollary of corroboration would be contradiction yes in fact even section 162 allows only contradiction not corroboration yes question 12 question 12 is that if a complaint on the face of it does not disclose the commission of an offense much less any of it is its ingredients is it not open to the magistrate to dismiss the complaint and the threshold under section 2 not to be seen what is it complaint on the face of it does not make out any offense the none of the ingredients of the offense are there in the complaint except expressing his anger toward the accused complaints anger toward the accused he does not make out any of the ingredients of the complaint if the magistrate were to take organisms as offense and proceed further precious time of the magistrate will be unnecessarily wasted therefore cannot the magistrate dismiss the complaint under section 203 or should he not dismiss under section 203 answer lies in the section itself you are right absolutely right section 203 does not allow the complaint to be dismissed at the threshold because if after considering the statements or notes if any of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of inquiry or investigation if any under section 202 the magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding he shall dismiss the complaint therefore a dismissal of a complaint at the threshold for the reason that the complaint it does not make out any offense he is not permissible dismissal under section 203 but then should the magistrate be deprived of a power to drop the proceedings precious time of the magistrate will be unnecessarily wasted therefore supreme court and kerala echoed have taken the view that it can be rejected outright rejected 2015 volume 12 sec 420 and kerala decision is 2008 criminal law general double four double eight double four double eight biju purushottu versus state of kerala by justice ram kumar the courts have taken the view that the court need not go to take cognizance record this own statement when the complaint itself is deficient is devoid of any any government regarding the the ingredients of the offense the precious time of the magistrate need not be wasted therefore magistrate can reject the complaint outright at the threshold yes question 13 if a revision petition is filed challenging an interlockery order the revision petition will not be maintainable in view of the specific bar at a section 397 sub clause 2 is not an order under section 204 CRPC by the magistrate issuing the summons the accused and interlockery are ordered barring the revision under section 397 of CRPC so when a private complaint is filed private complaint is filed magistrate applies his mind proceeds under chapter 15 record takes cognizance and then issues process case is not over accused will appear then if it is a warrant or session trial charge will have to be framed you will have to be supplied with the documents etc so case is not over so this is an order passed at the interlockery stage so section 397 2 says if the order is an interlockery order the revisional court shall not exercise the power of revision it has to be a final order so courts have devoid some methods to get over the to surmount the the statutory restriction to say that this is though it is not though it is passed at the interlockery stage it is not an interlockery order in the strictest sense of the term but it is only an intermediary or quasi final order only to make the revision mundane that's all the judgment law section doesn't say that the judgment law the citations are madhu limayi versus state of mairashtra ar 1978 supreme court 47 three judges then vc shukla versus state ar 1980 supreme court 962 4 judges then urmila devi versus you do you do we're seeing 2013 volume 15 scc 624 now in another decision supreme court has even a safe test a safe test to find out whether it is a final order or an interlockery order is to consider whether as i get the order under challenge if the petitioner revision petitioners contention is upheld if the revision petitioners contention is upheld or exceeded seated by the revisional court the it will result in the culmination of the proceedings then you can say that it is a final order even though it is past at the interlockery stage the one test laid down by supreme court in baskar industries versus divani denim apparels 2001 volume 7 scc 401 yes now we come to the last the last question of today's evening before we take the questions from the audience is relating to the controversial provision of inherent power of the high court my question is he's not an order under section 204 crpc by the magistrate issuing summons to the accused amenable to challenge under section 482 crpc if it is an interlockery order then the remedy is only 482 because 482 the seed of wording nothing in this court shall be nothing in this court nothing in this court can override even section 397 provisional power but the courts courts have given such an interpretation that even you need not go you need not go to the high court you can go to the session judge near nearer court and file a revision but if we if the order is passed by a magistrate within in the in close quarters of the high court then for the high court lawyer it may be easier to move the high court in the section 482 I think this much is inquiry yeah one question on the facebook has come by manoj complaint of misappropriation of public money magistrate has issued process against the accused then before ebc stage complainant died then what should be done in such circumstance fourth fourth complainant a complaint of misappropriation of public money i got a straight issued process against accused then before stage complainant has died what complainant has died complainant has died at what stage before ebc stage ebc means i'm not familiar with it anyway the death of the complainant does not put an end to the proceedings unlike the death of an accused ebc evidence before charge evidence before charge oh private company it's a private company evidence before car you are right i don't think proceedings will not abate proceedings will abate only if the accused is dead not if the complainant is dead yes i will just check it off because here we don't have any one probability questions now meanwhile sham can check it out otherwise i will check it on the youtube as to whether we have any questions sir in the meanwhile can i just put one question to you sir yes the term evidence is used at very many places in ci p is saying yes it's defined under evidence act alone not under the ci p is saying yes so evidence evidence means and includes all statements which the court permits or request to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact and inquiry such statements are called oral evidence all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court such documents are called documentary evidence yes so 2002 all the i mean discussions we had would squarely fall under this definition of evidence sir evidence but it is you it is recorded in violation of section 273 ci pc in the absence of the behind the back of the q therefore what is the worth of that evidence which has not been tested by cross-examination it may be evidence yes in fact section 191 itself uses the expression evidence but to become reliable it should be tested by cross-examination sit down get it and it is recorded behind his back because you may say behind his back means it in his front sir i fully agree with that because but it still graduates itself to the definition of evidences contemplated under the evidence act yes evidence should be value we learn to see otherwise yes the probative value of that evidence correct what is the report with section 3 of the evidence act yes section section 3 takes in only oral evidence and documentary evidence including electronic record but supposing there is a confession supposing the the there is a there is a material object material object is not evidence then how is it how is how is the court looking into a material object sir once it is introduced into the court it becomes evidence how how it is not evidence as defined under section 3 the confession the the likewise when they when a witness is being examined the judge may notice demeanor witness avoids that question recorded in the in the deposition confession then stay confession to the magistrate is he not he's not evidence he's not evidence therefore it till the likewise material object the then they notice supposing the judge were to magistrate were to make a local inspection under section 310 310 here pc and he makes some notes he's not evidence as defined under section 313 the impressions of the magistrate therefore that is where you find in the evidence act proved proved definition yes proved a fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it matters when after considering the matters yes matters before him that matters will take in all these aspects including material objects emote that is a proving of a fact after considering the matters mean not only the evidence oral evidence even confession and courts have taken the taken on to the extreme step of saying that if a confession is otherwise free from blemishes it can form the sole basis for a conviction though it is not evidence as defined under section 3 so the loose usage that decision is rendered on evidence may not be correct but it is rendered on food materials exactly you're right so kindly see section 3 when you refer to section 3 of the evidence act kindly see what the section 3 begin with yes evidence means and intudes okay unless the following words and expressions are used in the following senses under the intention of this from context yes under the intention so then come to 202 then go to 273 yes if there is a contrary intention elsewhere this may not apply every every every interpretation clause that reads like that in the absence in the absence of a contrary intention intention to the otherwise all definitions will start so the contrary appears in CRPC itself so you can identify this evidence correct that that is plausible correct sir with regard to the I mean the question number I think it was eight is there any difference between investigations no no no it was regarding that sessions whether there's a why the magistrate was bound to the court it is different between an investigation ordered and my magistrate under 156 free and investigation under 202 why the magistrate is bound to so you refer to an amni yes is it rosy or amni rosy was the I think it was almost right no just judgment is by kids almost in fact a that trial judge who was a very very competent judge and unfortunately was very technical he was very technical judge and he one of the items which he relied on was his con is a confession made by the accused to the doctor to whom he was taken by under police custody the he was when he was arrested by the investigating officer the police found that there were injuries including bite marks on his body he was taken to a doctor he was sent sent sent he was sent to a doctor in the in the company of two contrables those contrables after leaving him in the chamber of the doctor went out for having tea then the doctor asked him what happened and he said he was bitten by the woman who was murdered in this case this was this was taken as a confession interdicted by section 26 of the Odin's Act section 26 says any confession made while in the custody of police shall be shall not be used against the accused was an accused of an offense therefore it was relied on by the trial court i court speaking through justice full bench of the kala i court speaking through justice katie thomas beautifully explained that saying that what is a confession what is it that he told the doctor he told he only told that this these bite marks were inflicted by the lady who was murdered in this case he did not say that while i was i murdered while i was throttling while i was strangulating this lady out of struggle for life she bit me that is not the statement then only it becomes a confession while all confessions are admissions all admissions are not confession that is how the matter was dealt with by the full bench there the the what was the question frame so is it in that case it was in that case that this aspect also was considered and the full bench said the purpose of directing a mandatory inquiry under section 202 in a private complaint private complaint alleging commission of offenses exclusively tribal by court of session is to give an advantage to the accused during the subsequent trial because otherwise the witnesses history of the witness or the previous matters of the witness will be unknown to the accused he will not be able to effectively cross-examine it unlike in the case of a police investigation where the police officers will will produce the 161 statement before court that was beautifully explained by justice thomas in that is my memory i don't i am not fully sure anyway there's a full bench decision explaining this i think that is in the supreme court i think it was just nanavati or something 98 supreme court exactly there was 98 supreme court i don't remember the kerala decision 87 or 89 89 or full bench how many verses do kerala merlin murder case of north parour otherwise 98 to a cc or something maybe it was a merlin the notorious merlin murder case of north parour and then sir there was another question yes regarding the last two questions question 13 and 14 okay whether a revision petition is maintainable as against a summoning order of course so what you said is absolutely correct because this is an intermediate order right from we have a right from amaranth so this is supreme court following followed by a matul matul matul then kk patel ms chukla kathagura methi abhubakar we have it with all of prisoners kind of season now adalat prasad but mr brave technically you technically speaking is it not an interlocutory order past at the interlocutory stage if a big if a bail order is an interlocutory order as enterprise supreme court sir that bail order i think there is a judgment by justice ram kumar we're advocate kair a ram kumar appeared two thousand and prasad was the state of prasad really it's not an interlocutory order and what is absolutely correct prasad jackup prasad jackup exactly prasad jackup what you said is absolutely correct because it is never an interlocutory order because it can be it can be supposing it is passed in passed in a pending appeal exactly but at the same time this was passed in the crimes crime stage during the crime stage sir even at the crime stage let me ask you now if you closely read vc chukla 80 supreme court 962 vc chukla defines this particular term of interlocutory order which is used in 397 class 2 it goes on to say see what is an interlocutory order the term is to be understood and taken to mean the converse term of final order yes vc chukla merely says it is converse to final order now we have amaranad versus state that was one of the first rulings yes it comes in amaranad goes on to say see if you're right at that particular moment if your right is affected then it is not an interlocutory order then comes madhulimai which again yes then it's an intermediate order or final order but sir at the same time in amaranad prasad versus this uh rublar jintal uh it was hill because of course it was never held that this is an interlocutory order but the supreme court while overruling matthew's case k matthew's case went on to observe that in the absence of course that was a recalling order but the supreme court goes on to say the remedy lies in invoking section 482 yes how comes another case by the supreme court supreme court but then see but in in fact they also said it is the amount to review when the magistrate goes back to the earlier stage it amount to review which is which is which is not a power given to the magistrate or even to the icor absolutely true sir but at the same time the supreme court says then the remedy lies in invoking see the remedy there is 393 also supreme court said remedy lies in invoking section 482 yes then adalat prasad was doubted in the very same year in supremannam seh dhrama a 2004 supreme court 47001 and supremannam seh dhraman goes on to say that what is observed in adalat prasad that is the only remedy which is available to an agreed accused to challenge the order is the extraordinary remedy under section 482 482 and this adalat prasad has been followed in dharival tobacco products i don't remember the citation it is 2009 supreme court dharival tobacco products was the state of maharashtra weren't they fix good followed this particular judgment but at the same time merely went on to opiate that it is preposterous to say that what adalat prasad so far as it relates for invoking the invoking the inherent jurisdiction is concerned it did not lay down good luck even though it was good same strength bilges but sir does that turn into a gray area because supreme court goes on to say you have your remedy lies only in 482 similar things it's all it's all the the i will say it said exit of the particular judge who decides the case see what should i say when i went what about that jacar and sink's case jacar and sink's case held the field for how many years until it was so much reviewed for one year just just after one year it was so much reviewed but review order was not published by any of the journals law journals with the results even now it is the original jacar and sink is cited before the supreme court and adal court and unmerited acquittals are being recorded what can we do sir what you said is perfectly correct because in bhaskar industries the supreme court goes on to clearly say because bhaskar industries comes after KK Patel after the issue every ruling of the supreme court was considered the supreme court says it is not at the stage of that particular order thing would say is the safest is that when you really move in a revision the question is whether the criminal proceedings would have culminated if your condition is accepted by the revolution exactly exactly that's the only question actually but still kindly see because even after bhaskar industries i think bhaskar industries is 2002 supreme court then comes adal prasad and the supreme court and dharivad without considering all these things yes anyway it was a wonderful lecture sir thank you so much thank you when the magistrate passes the order under 2002 what is the time frame set for the police to record the statement and submit their reports or whatever CRPC doesn't fix any time frame but then the magistrate can monitor because Sakiri Vasu is there Sakiri Vasu decision is there magistrate can always monitor what happened to the FIR complaint forwarded to you you can ask what of the police make the statements disappear from the police station only statements yeah the statements recorded have not disappeared they can make they can make disappear not only statements even individuals evidence yeah that's true the legislature has taken note of that in section 176 1a where a person disappears from a custody that is taken judicial notice i rather the legislature has taken notice of that sir if we come to know that the the evidence has disappeared can we file an FIR for you mean evidence has disappeared mean the mean in the sense the recorded statements are missing yes they're missing the thing is they don't give a free copy to the statement giver so that is why i i was very smart sir whenever i record my statement because they recorded in the local language yes yes so i give them a i carry my english interpretation give submitted to them and take an acknowledgement yes so that is their own record that also has disappeared so now they're running around it's been two years so technically they're there the magistrate is coming down heavily on them for that oh my goodness yes sir before we part for the day i will ask mr. sham panman to give a vote of thanks as such since there was an active participation from the letters groups itself today thank you because thank you it is just wonderful that the activity of imparting language knowledge is continuing unabated it is we can find speakers with good knowledge regarding the subject we can have persons who can deliver good lectures need not necessarily be very knowledgeable but combination of both is very difficult to find that is where we have justice rancumas pedagogical skill the way the clarity with which he expresses the the points he want to make and clears the doubts sir i think this platform is privileged to have justice rancumas again and again and with a slide i'd say i'm envious also because we don't get you too often to take classes nowadays the questions that has been put posed by the different participants shows the interest in this specific subject and i would like to thank you sir for the way in which you frame the questions frame the arm and answered it and also clarified the doubts and the data and the materials that has been given to the participants would endure to their benefit that be something to be kept and contemplated so on behalf of all of us i mean especially the organizers thank you sir for being here and all the participants for this active participation and because thank you for this opportunity before i ask everyone to just share subscribe and like our beyond law clc channel and they can also connect on what's up bro but as usual this session again on the youtube and facebook is doing extremely well and who thinks when shams said that he's somewhat envious as i would just remind him that the profession is a jealous mistress number one and number two they say that just the profession not the professional and number two he says that justice rancumas shares knowledge on this platform not there i'm again reminded that they say nearer to church further from god so but on this virtual platform we have brought the god here because they say that laws are always judges are also called as my lords so my laws are akin to a god because if further they say that to err as human and to forgive is divine and that divineness is the only given to the my lords once there is an error even on the part of the lawyer i take exception i take exception to being addressed as me lord your lordship etc i used to take exception even in my court but adrugage will not leave that because first of all it has become a habit secondly in their own interest they will not it has become more or less like a spinal reflex than a cerebral or an application of just taking things forward they say that a lawyer who is in routine practicing the high court even before the subordinate court or even before the kusai judicial authorities he's so used to addressing it even when he's appearing before a bureaucrat he will say my lords so that bar of that bureaucrat gets elated when the lawyer from the high court addresses on that particular issue is always when the lawyer from the trial court is addressing he will be saying sir and he he feels that there is a he feels elated yeah that's what i'm honored but yeah tomorrow do stay connected with us we would be having justice roshan dalvi speaking at 4 p.m on fundamentals of contract but tomorrow at 4 p.m since it's a working day everyone stay safe stay blessed again as we say maintain social distancing as well as wear masks because the as we are seeing spiral spikes in the over is increasing which all has led to the board lockdown and reminded that when we started off it was the lockdown phase one but the lockdown phase two is on a much much higher phase so the only way out is maintaining social distancing using sanitizers etc so everyone says stay stay blessed and thank you to justice ramkumar and to all those who have been watching us live on the facebook youtube and on this platform to take out the time to have the knowledge being uh being inculcated from what justice ramkumar has shared with us and is much passionate to build up the questions which commonly come in the mind of a common man lawyer than the judicial officers to take things forward stay safe and be blessed thank you