IMPORTANT CASES ON

CRPC
 Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke
and Others v. Joseph Joseph and Other

 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230

 Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant
 Authored by Justice DY Chandrachud
 Cases Referred: Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 wherein it was held that a further
investigation conducted under the orders of the court or by the police on its own accord would
lead to the filing of a supplementary report. In the said judgment, it was also noted by the court
that the supplementary report would have to be dealt with "as part of the primary report" in view of
Section 173 (3) to (6).
 The bench also referred to Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1.
 Ratio of the court:
 The Supreme Court has observed that a Judicial Magistrate should consider both the initial final
report submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC and the supplementary report submitted under Section
173(8) before deciding whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offense.
 R. Kalai Selvi vs. Bheemappa ; CrA 747
OF 2021
 Citation: LL 2021 SC 361
 Coram: Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari
 Facts: In this case, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, was sentenced to fine in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. It
was also stipulated that the stipulation that in the event of default in payment of
fine, she would undergo simple imprisonment for six months. An amount of
Rs.5,90,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation in terms
of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the balance amount was to be remitted to the State.
The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused.
 Ratio: The Supreme Court observed that deposit of fine amount cannot be made a
condition precedent for hearing revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
 Joseph Stephen vs Santhanasamy

 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

 Corum: Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna
 Referred Landmark case: Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC
752: After the amendment under Section 372, The right provided to the victim to
prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right.
 Ratio: (1) High Court While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 401 Of
Code Of Criminal Procedure Cannot Convert A Finding Of Acquittal Into One Of
Conviction.
 (2) The victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal, as the victim has
a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 proviso and the proviso to Section 372
does not stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like
subsection (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C"
 M.A Khaliq vs. Ashok Kumar

 Citation : LL 2021 SC 472

 Coram: Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi
 Referred Landmark case: Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8
SCC 273, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
 Ratio: "The mere fact that no crime was registered, could not be a
defence, nor would it be an escape from the rigour of the decisions
rendered by this Court. As a matter of fact, summoning the person
without there being any crime registered against him and detaining
him would itself be violative of basic principles“.
 Sadique vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ;
CrA 963 OF 2021
 Citation: LL 2021 SC 434
 Coram: Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Belam M Trivedi
 Landmark Case Referred: Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616
 In Bikramjit, the Supreme Court observed that all offences under the UAPA, whether investigated by the
National Investigation Agency or by the investigating agencies of the State Government, are to be tried
exclusively by Special Courts set up under the NIA Act. The three judge bench headed by Justice
Rohinton Fali Nariman observed that the Special Court alone had jurisdiction to extend time to 180 days
under the first proviso in Section 43-D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
 Ratio: The Supreme Court held that magistrates would not be competent to extend the time to complete
investigations in UAPA cases.
 The only competent authority to consider such request would be "the Court" as specified in the proviso in
Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA
 Fakhrey Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

 Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy

 Citation: LL 2021 SC 165
 Case referred: Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616
 Ratio: The Supreme Court observed that the time period for investigation
specified under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be
extended by seeking to file supplementary charge sheet qua UAPA offences.
 Default bail under first proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental
right and not merely a statutory right as it is, a procedure established by law
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus a fundamental right is granted to an
accused person to be released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso
to Section 167(2)of the Cr.P.C. are fulfilled
 Serious Fraud Investigation office v.
Rahul Modi
 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138
 Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai
 Case referred: Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 3 SCC 77.
 In the referred case, It was held by this Court that the filing of charge-sheet is sufficient
compliance with the provisions of proviso (a) to Section 167(2), CrPC and that taking of
cognizance is not material to Section 167.
 Ratio of the case: The Supreme Court observed that an accused cannot seek default bail
merely on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days or
90 days, as the case may be, from the date of remand if chargesheet was already filed.
The indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure arises only if the charge-sheet has not been filed before the
expiry of the statutory period.
 The court added that the accused continues to be in the custody of the Magistrate till
such time cognizance is taken by the court trying the offence, which assumes custody of
the accused for the purpose of remand after cognizance is taken.
 Centrum Financial Services Ltd.
State(NCT of Delhi)
 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103
 Corum: Justice MR Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna
 Cases Referred: Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and Another, (2020) where it was held that
though the Court does not ordinarily interfere with the order of the High Court granting bail,
however, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without due
application of mind and in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order of
granting bail is liable to be set aside.
 The Bench also relied on the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of UP & Anr., (2016) where Supreme
Court had laid down the factors to be considered by the Court while dealing with an
application for grant of bail.
 Ratio of the case: The Supreme Court of India has observed that where a Court while
considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an Appellate Court
may justifiably set aside the order granting bail.

 According to the Bench, the Appellate Court is required to consider whether the order granting
bail suffers from a non-application of mind or a prima facie view from the evidence available
on record.
 Murali v. State

 Coram: Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose

 Citation: LL 2021 SC 11
 Referred Case: Ram Pujan v. State of UP [(1973) 2 SCC 456] and
Ishwar Singh v. State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC 667], and some others,
in which compromise between parties were taken note of to
reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious non-
compoundable offences.
 Ratio of the case: The Supreme Court has observed that the fact
of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose
of reduction in the quantum of sentence.
 State v. Tr. N. Seenivasagan

 Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah

 Citation: LL 2021 SC 136
 Section 311 deals with the power to summon material witness, or
examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any
inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any
person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though
not summoned as a witness, or recall and reexamine any person
already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or
recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it
to be essential to the just decision of the case.
 Cases Referred: Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of
 Sartaj Khan v. state of Uttrakhand

 Coram: Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri
Narasimha

 Ratio: The Supreme Court observed that Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure
Code will not be attracted if a part of the offence was committed in India.

 The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed
outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be
enquired into or tried in India. Under Section 188 CrPC, even if an offence is
committed outside India, (a) by a citizen whether on the high seas or
anywhere else or (b) by a non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India,
the offence can still be tried in India provided the conditions mentioned in said
Section are satisfied.
 Satbir Singh Vs. State Of Haryana

 Coram: CJI NV Ramana, Justice Aniruddha Bose

 The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered yesterday, expressed its concern
over recording of statements under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure
in a very casual and cursory manner.
 It is also observed that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC
cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the
fundamental principle of fairness.
 The court also referred to Section 232, CrPC which provides that, "If, after taking
the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the
prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no
evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an
order of acquittal".
 Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

 Coram: Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose
 Referred Case: Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar [(1967) 2 SCR 423 : AIR 1967 SC
1167, Dharam Pal and Others vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 3 SCC 306] and
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92.
 Ratio: The Supreme Court observed that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an
offence on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can issue summons to any person not arraigned as
an accused in the police report or in the FIR.
 "If there are materials before the Magistrate showing complicity of persons other
than those arraigned as accused or named in column 2 of the police report in
commission of an offence, the Magistrate at that stage could summon such
persons as well upon taking cognizance of the offence“.
 Suresh Kankra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 35

 Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh

 Ratio: The Supreme Court observed that a Judicial Magistrate is

required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an
Order under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It
being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be
taken note of
Sunil Kumar vs State of Bihar, Manno Lal
Jaiswal vs State of Uttar Pradesh
 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88
 Corum: Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna

 Ratio: The Supreme Court reiterated that the gravity and nature of the offences alleged against
the accused are relevant considerations while considering his bail application.
 While granting bail, the relevant considerations are

 (i) nature of seriousness of the offence;

 (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused;
 (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;

 (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact
on the society;

 (v) likelihood of his tampering

 The court further noted that when the accused were charged for the offences
punishable under Section 149 of the IPC also and when their presence has been
established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the
individual role and/or overt act by the individual accused is not significant and/or
relevant.
 Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh

 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

 Corum: Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar
 Relevant Provisions: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300 and 376–
Rape and Murder - Death Sentence -
 Ratio: 1) Abhorrent nature of crime alone cannot be the decisive factor
for awarding death sentence - Due consideration to be given to the
equally relevant aspect pertaining to mitigating factors before arriving
at a conclusion that option of any other punishment than the capital
one was foreclosed.
 2) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal By Special Leave is not a regular appeal
- The Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on pure
appreciation of evidence nor it is the scope of these appeals that this Court would enter
into reappreciation of evidence so as to take a view different than that taken by the Trial
Court and approved by the High Court.
 3) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal By Special Leave - In an appeal by
special leave, where the Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently returned the
findings of fact after appreciation of evidence, each and every finding of fact cannot be
contested nor such an appeal could be dealt with as if another forum for reappreciation
of evidence - If the assessment by the Trial Court and the High Court could be said to be
vitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or in disregard to the
norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice or injustice, the Court may, and in
appropriate cases would, interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of
justice but, such a course is adopted only in rare and exceptional cases of manifest
illegality.
 4) Indian Evidence Act - Section 106 - Last Seen Theory - When 'last
seen' evidence is cogent and trustworthy which establishes that the
deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of the accused; and is
coupled with the evidence of discovery of the dead body of
deceased at a far away and lonely place on the information
furnished by the accused, the burden is on the accused to explain his
whereabouts after he was last seen with the 71 deceased and to
show if, and when, the deceased parted with his company as also the
reason for his knowledge about the location of the dead body

 5) Criminal Trial - The approximate time of death before examination,

as indicated in the post-mortem report, cannot be applied as
something of mathematical precision
 6) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 354(3) - Death Sentence - The evolution of legal
position and norms for dealing with the question of sentencing and the connotations of
'special reasons' for awarding death sentence discussed - Court has found it justified to have
capital punishment on the statute to serve as deterrent as also in due response to the society's
call for appropriate punishment in appropriate cases but at the same time, the principles of
penology have evolved to balance the other obligations of the society, i.e., of preserving the
human life, be it of accused, unless termination thereof is inevitable and is to serve the other
societal causes and collective conscience of society. This has led to the evolution of 'rarest of
rare test' and then, its appropriate operation with reference to 'crime test' and 'criminal test'.
The delicate balance expected of the judicial process has also led to another mid-way
approach, in curtailing the rights of remission or premature release while awarding
imprisonment for life, particularly when dealing with crimes of heinous nature.
 7) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 354(3) - Death Sentence - When the accused is
not shown to be a person having criminal antecedents and is not a hardened criminal, it
cannot be said that there is no probability of him being reformed and rehabilitated - His
unblemished jail conduct and having a family of wife, children and aged father would also
indicate towards the probability of his reformation.