Supreme Court of India
STATE OF GOAversusJOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ ROBERT VALES
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 776
- Decided
- 18 August 2017
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARUN MISHRA
Holding
Under Section 343(1) CrPC, a magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 340/341 must proceed as far as possible as if the case were instituted on a police report, and the Chapter XIX‑B procedure does not apply.
Summary
The State of Goa filed a complaint under Section 340 of the CrPC alleging that a prosecution witness, Jose Maria Albert Vales, gave false testimony under oath in a Sessions trial, constituting an offence under Section 193 IPC. The trial magistrate, without conducting a full inquiry, framed a charge against Vales. The High Court quashed the charge, holding that because the case was instituted on a complaint rather than a police report, the magistrate should have followed the rigorous procedure of Chapter XIX‑B (Section 244 CrPC). The Supreme Court examined the interplay of Sections 340, 341, and 343 of the CrPC, emphasizing that Section 343(1) mandates the magistrate to proceed, as far as possible, as if the case were instituted on a police report, thereby excluding the Chapter XIX‑B procedure. The Court held that the High Court’s approach was indefensible and that the magistrate could validly frame the charge without complying with Section 244. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the High Court’s order set aside.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 343(1) CrPC to complaints filed under Section 340/341 and whether such complaints must be treated as cases instituted on a police report.
- Whether the trial magistrate was required to follow the Chapter XIX‑B procedure (Section 244 CrPC) for cases instituted otherwise than on a police report.
- Whether the expression "as far as may be" in Section 343(1) allows the magistrate discretion to conduct a summary inquiry before proceeding.
- The correctness of the High Court’s decision to quash the charge and direct the magistrate to follow Chapter XIX‑B procedure.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898s. 476
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173, s. 190, s. 193, s. 195, s. 200, s. 202, s. 204, s. 238, s. 239, s. 240, s. 241, s. 242, s. 243, s. 244, s. 245, s. 246, s. 247, s. 340, s. 341, s. 343, s. 344, s. 345, s. 346
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 193
Subjects
complaintinquiryinvestigationpolice reportwarrant casesummons caseSection 340 CrPCSection 343 CrPCSection 195 CrPCfalse evidenceperjuryadministration of justicemagistrate discretioncharge framing
Judgment
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 163
STATE OF GOA A
v.
JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ ROBERT VALES
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1427-1428 of2017)
AUGUST 18, 2017 B
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.244, 340 and 343 -
Statement of respondent, a prose.cution witness, reco_rded u/s.164,
Cr.P. C by Magistrate - While testifying in the Session's trial,
respondent resiled from. this statement- Sessions Court being prima
c
facie of the view that the respondent deliberately made contradictory
statements on oath in order to screen/favour the accused in the
session's trial, without conducting any inquiry as permissible u/
s. 340, directed respondent's prosecution by filing complaint against
him uls..193,JPC - Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the D
respondent uls.193,JPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate - .
In the proceedings, prosecution examined three witnesses from the
list apart from the complainant-Sessions Judge - Thereafter,
Magistrate framed charges against the respondent uls.193,IPC -
Application by respondent before Magistrate for dropping· of the E
proceedings against him, rejected - Revision before Court of
Sessions also rejected - High Court quashed the charges against
the respondent holding it to be premature and in violation of
procedure prescribed uls.244,Cr.P.C. - According to High Court
the complaint ought to have been construed to be a case otherwise
than on polite report to which warrant procedure was applicable, F
thus, charge could not have been framed against respondent as the
prosecution had not adduced all its evidence at that_ stage, as
required u/s.244,Cr.P.C - Plea of appellant-State before Supreme
Court that in terms of s.343,Cr.P.C the case though registered on a
complaint u/s.340 was to be dealt with as if instituted on a police G
report, for which the rigour of the procedure u/s.244,Cr.PC was
inapplicable - Held: Approach of High Court is. wholly indefensible,
as uls. 343(1 ), Cr.P. C the procedure prescribedfor cases instituted
otherwise than on police report is not attracted qua a complaint u/
s.340, Cr.P. C. - impugned judgment of High Court is unsustainable-
Trial Magistrate to proceed from the stage of framing of charge, H
163
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A strictly in compliance of s.343(1),CrPC- Penal Code; 1860- s.193-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - s.476.
Words & Phrases - "Complaint", "inquiry", "investigation",
"police report", "summons-case" and "warrant-case "~Meaning
of - Explained - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.2(d), 2(g),
B 2(h), 2(r), 2(w) and 2(x).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - 'Inquiry' and
'Investigation' - Difference between - Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195 - Offences u/Cl.(a)
and (b) -· Cognizance of - Conditions for - Held: Vis-a-vis the
c offences enumerated in clause (a), cognizance is permissible only
on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of
some other public servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate- For offences in clause (b), a complaint in writing of
the Court or by such officer of the Court, as that Court may authorise
in writing or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate
D is an imperative precondition.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s.195- Offences under
Cl.(a) & (b)- Summons cases or warrant case- Held:Having regard
to the punishments prescribed therefor, the offences detailed in
clauses (a) and (b), give rise to "summons" as well "warrant-cases".
E Penal Code, 1860 - s.193 - Offence under - Summons case
or warrant case '- Held: An offen<:r{.'uls.193 would constitute a
warrant case.
,.,
. . . .;. .
Code of Crimina(P;ocedure, 1973- Chapter XIX- ss.238-
243, ss. 244-247- Trial of warrant cases by Magistrate in cases
F instituted on a police report and in cases instituted otherwise than
on police report - Procedure adopted for - Distinction between -
· Held: The distinction lies in the fact that whereas in the former,
there is no scope for the prosecution to examine any witness at the
stage where the Magistrate is to consider whether a charge is to be
G framed or not, in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report,
after the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the
prosecution is required to adduce all such evidence in support of
his case.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XXVI - s.340 -
Complaint under - Two essential pre-requisites for - Explained.
H
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 165
VALES
Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973,.... s.340 - Enquiry under - A
Scope of - Held: Scope of scrutiny 'u/s.340 .is to decide whether on
the materials available the matter requires. inquiry by a criminal
court and whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to have
an inquiry into the offence affecting administration of justice.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.343 - Procedure to be B
adopted by the Magistrate taking cognizance - Discussed.
Words & Phrases - "as far as may be" - Meaning of - Code
of Cri17Jinal Procedure, 1973 - s.343(1).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
c
HELD: 1.1 A "complaint" is an allegation made orally or in
writing to a Magistrate with a view to take action under CrPC
against some person, known or unknown, who had committed an
offence and does. not i~lude a police report. In contradistinction,
"police report" means i:report forwarded by a police officer to a
Magistrate under Section l73(2), CrPC ~hereas "warrant case" D
is one relatable to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment
.for life or punishment for a t11rm eif eeding two Y.ears, a "summons-
case" is one qua an· offence which is not a "war~ant-case". A clear
cut distinction, therefore, has been ordained by ~e CrPC between
a "complaint" and a "police report" as well as a. "warrant-case" E
and a "summons-case". [Para 14) [179-A-C)
1.2 Notably, "inquiry" means every inquiry other than a
trial conductedunder the Code of Criminal Procedure by a
Magistrate or Court. Distinguished from "inguiry", which is to
be undertaken by a Magistrate or a Court, as prescribed,
F
"investigation" includes all proceedings under the Code for the
collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any
person (other than a Magistrate), who is authorized by a
Magistrate in that regard. [Para 15) [179-C-D)
2. Sectio~ 195 CrPC deals with prosecution for contempt
of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public .G
justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
Sub-section (1) thereof, which is relevant for the present pursuit,
clamps an embargo on the cognizance by any court of any offence,
as mentioned therein, in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. Whereas,
vis-a-vis the offences enumerated in clause (a), such cognizance H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A is permissible only on a complaint in writing of the public servant
concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate, in re offences cataglogued in clause
(b), a complaint in writing of the Court or by such officer of the
Court, as that Court may authorise in writing or of some other
Court to which that Court is subordinate, is an imperative
B precondition. The offences detailed in clauses (a) and (b),
having regard to the punishments prescribed therefor, give rise
to "summons" as well "warrant-cases". An offence under Section
193 IPC however would constitute a warrant case. [Paras 16, 17)
[l 79~E-F; 180-G-H)
c 3. A cumulative review of the provisions pertaining to the
cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate on a complaint would
evince that a Magistrate, if he thinks fit, even after the examination
of the complainant and the witnesses present, at the time of taking
cognizance may postpone the issuance of process, if he construes
D it to be fit to either cause an inquiry to be made by himself or
direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or such
other person, as he thinks fit, for being satisfied as to whether or
not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. A Magistrate,
however, need not examine the complainant and the witnesses,
if a pubic servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
E his official duties or a Court has made the complaint. There is
however no restraint on him to cause an inquiry to be made by
himself even on such a complaint for the purpose of deciding
whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This
allowance is assuredly to secure the ends of justice and to avoid/
F obviate 1~ven the remotest possibility of any avoidable
prosecution. [Para 23) [181-G-H; 182-A-B)
4.1 Chapter XIX is devoted to trial of warrant cases by
Magistrate and enfolds two categories i.e. A -cases instituted on
a police report and B- cases instituted otherwise than on a police
G report. In the former category i;e. cases instituted on a police
report, the successive stages comprehended after the accused
appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement
of the trial, have been detailed. These are accommodated
in Sections 238 to 243. With regard to cases instituted otherwise
than on police report, the procedure is outlined in Sections
H 244 to 247 of CrPC. [Paras 24, 27) [182-C; 183-E-F]
STAIE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ROBERT 167
VALES
4.2 The strikingly. distinguishable feature in the procedures A
to be adopted for cases instituted on a police report and those
instituted otherwise than on a police report, lies in the fact that
whereas in .the former, there is no scope for the prosecution to
examine any witness at the stage where the Magistrate is to
consider whether a charge is to be framed or not, in cases B
instituted othenvise than on a police report, after the accused
appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the prosecution is
required to adduce all such evidence in support of his cas_~,
whereupon the Magistrate may discharge ttie accuse.d, if he is of
the view, for reasons to be recorded on the basis of such evidence,
that no case had been made out against him, which if unrebutted, c
would warrant his conviction. However, if the Magistrate is of
the opinion, in view of such evide.nce, or also at any previous
stage of the case, that there is ground. for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence triable under the Chapter and
which he is competent to try and adequately punish, he shall D
frame a charge against the accused. Subsequent thereto, if the
accused refuses to plead guilty or does not plead so or claims· to
be tried, vis-a-vis the charge, he would be offered an opportunity
to cross-examine any of the witnesses of the prosecution, whose
evidence had been taken and on which the charge is founded and
if the accused elects to avail this opportunity, the witnesses named E
by him would be recalled and after cross-examination and re-
examination, they shall be discharged. Thus, not only the
prosecution, in the cases instituted otherwise than on a police
report, would have an opportunity to adduce all such evidence in
support of its case on which, on a consideration whereof, the
accused may be charged or discharged, as the case may be, the F
latter can avail the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses
only after the charge is framed. As Section 246(6) would
authenticate, the prosecution woul.d thereafter have another
chance of examining the remaining witnesses, who understandably,
if examined, would be subjected to cross-examination and re- · G
examination before their discharge. [Para 28) (184-F-H; 185-A-
C)
4.3 Chapter XX deals with trial of summons-cases by the
Magistrates in which, after the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A is accused, shall be stated to him and he would be asked whether
he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it would not be
necessary to frame a formal charge. If the accused pleads guilty,
the Magistrate would record the plea as nearly as possible in the
words used by him and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.
B If however, the Magistrate does not convict the accused, he shall
nroceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as
may be produced in support of the prosecution and also hear the
accused and take all such evidence as he would produce in his
defence and record acquittal or conviction, as the case may be.
[Para 291 [185-D-F)
c 5.1 Chapter XXVI pertaining to "Provisions as to offences
affecting the administration of justice", is the center piece of
scrutiny. As per Section 340, CrPC, captioned as "Procedure in
cases mentioned in Section 195", when upon an application made
to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of the opinion that it
D is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be
made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1)
of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in
relation to a proceeding in that Court or as the case may be in
respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in that Court, such Court may after such preliminary
E enquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary: (a) record a finding to that
effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a
Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient
security for the appearance for the nccused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court
F thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such
Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give
evidence before such Magistrate. [Para 30) [185-G-H; 186-A-C)
5.2 This power in the eventualities, as enumerated in sub-
section (2), can be exercised by the Court to which the former
G Court is subordinate within the meaning of Section 195(4). Sub-
section (3) requires that such a complaint has to be signed by the
authorities as mentioned therein. The two essential pre-
requisites, as predicated by this provision, are formation of an
opinion (1) even ifprima facie, that an offence referred to Section
195(1)(b) appears to have been committed in or in relation to a
H
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 169
VALES
proceeding of the Court or as the case may be in respect of any A
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that
Court and (2) it is expedient in the-interests of justice that an
enquiry should be made into-such offence.. [P_ara 31) [186-D-E)
5.3 It is ~o longer res integra that the preiiminary enquir.y,
as compr:ehended in Section 340, is not obligatory to be B
undertaken by the Court before taking the initiatives as contained
in clauses (a) to (e) while invoking its powers thereunder. Section
341 provides for an appeal against an order either refusing to
make a complaint or making a complaint under Section 340,
whereupon the superior court may direct the making of the
complaint or withdrawal thereof, as the case may be. Section 343 C
delineates the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate taking
cognizance. [Para 32) [186-F-G)
5.4 As sub-section (1) of Section 343 would unequivocally
testify, a Magistrate _to whom a complaint is made under Section
340 or Section 341 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in D
Chapter XV of the Code i.e. the procedure to be followed by a
Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint, proceed as far as
may be to deal with the case as if it was instituted on a police
report. [Para 33) [187-C-E)
5.5 At t!te stage of lodging of a complaint under Section E
340 Cr.P.C., the decisive consideration is the satisfaction derived
by the Complaining Court that it was expedient in the interests
of justice ·that an inquiry ought to be made by a Criminal Court
into an offence which otherwise appeared to have been committed
in connection with the proceedings before it and affecting the F
administration of justice. The language used in Section
340 Cr.P.C. does not make it imperative for a Court to make a
complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to
in Section 195(1)(b) as the Section is conditioned by the words
"Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice"
which demonstrate that such a course would be adopted only if in G
the interests of justice, it is required and not otherwise. (Paras
35, 36) [188-A, B-C, D-E)
5.6 In an inquiry held by the Court under Section 340(1),
CrPC irrespective of the result .of the main case, the only question
is whether a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, H ·
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offence
and whether it is also expedient in the interests of justice to take
such action. Further, at the trial, the reasons recorded in the
order under Section 340(1) should not weigh with the Criminal
Court in coming to its independent conclusion whether the
B offence, as alleged, has been fully established beyond reasonable
doubt and it would be for the prosecution to establish all the
ingredients of such offence and the decision would be based only
on the evidence produced before the Criminal Court during the
trial and its conclusion would be independent of the opinion formed
by the complaining court under Section 340(1). [Para 37) [188-
C G-H; 189-A-C)
5. 7 The hub of Section 340 is the formation of an opinion by
the Court, before which the proceedings were pending prior to
the complaint, that it is expedient in the interests of justice that
an inquiry should be made into an offence which appears to have
D been committed. Though in order to form such an opinion, the
Court was empowered to hold a preliminary inquiry, it was not
obligatory to do so and even without such preliminary inquiry,
the Court could form such an opinion. The Court, though, even
after forming such an opinion was not obligated to make a
complaint, but once it decides to do so, it has to make a finding to
E the effect that in the fact situation, it is expedient in the interests
of justice that the offence should be further probed into. Absence
of any preliminary inquiry would not vitiate a finding if reached,
that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should
be made into the offence which appears to have been committed.
F The preliminary inquiry.contemplated was not for finding as to
whether a particular person was guilty or not but only to decide
as to whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire
into the offence which appears to have been committed. At the
stage of analysis under Section 340, CrPC for the above purpose,
there was no legal obligation to afford an opportunity to the
G persons against whom the complaint could eventually be made.
[Paras 39, 42] [189-E-H; 190-A; 191-A-B)
6.1 The salient features of the expression "as far as may
be" engrafted in Section 343, the can be deciphered as: (i) a
Magistrate dealing with a complaint under Section 340 or Section
H
STATE.OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @.ROBERT 171
VALES
341 has to proceed as far as may be to deal with the case as if it A
were instituted on a police report; (ii) this course the Magistrate
would follow notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter XV.
[Para 51) (195-G-H; 196-A]
~ · 6.2 Noticeably, the expression "as far as may be" assuredly
lends some elasticity, relaxing the otherwise rigour of the B
legislative mandate to deal with the complaint as a case instituted
on a police report. It cannot be gainsaid that in absence of this.
discernible flexibility, the Magistrate would be left with no option
but to construe the complaint under Section 340 or Section 341 to
bf a· case as if instituted on a police report, Section 343(1) thus
clearly marks an exception qua the procedure to be adopted by C
the Trial Magistrate if the complaint is filed under Section
340 or Section 341,CrPC. To reiterate, barring the perceptible
flexibility as contained in the expression "as far as may be", the
Magistrate is required to deal with the complaint as a case as if
instituted on a police report. Section 343(1), CrPC enjoins the D
Trial Magistrate to deal with the complaint under Section
·340 or Section 341 by treating it to be a case, as if instituted on a
police report. There is indeed a deeming element ingrained in
the provision. Further, the expression "as far as may be" does
not foreclose wholly, at the same time the discretion of the Trial
Magistrate, if he genuinely feels it necessary, to get additional E
materials on record for his necessary satisfaction to proceed
thereafter as required in law. This element of discretion conferred
on the Trial Magistrate does not either suggest or encourage
any irreverence to the complaining court and the legislative intent
is to ensure against avertable judicial proceedings in the overall F
interest of justice. The amendment, while secures an expeditious
disposal of the complaint by treating it to be a case instituted on
a police report as far as may be without undergoing the rigour of
the elaborate procedure meant for a complaint case, has with the
conferment of the discretion on the Trial Magistrate, as above
provided the necessary balance to prevent even the remotest G
possibility of a lame prosecution. [Paras 52, 55) [196-B-C; 197-
E-H; 198-A]
. 7. Judged from the standpoint of interplay between Sections
340 and 343, CrPC, thus the following eventualities may arise:
H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A a) When a judicial complaint is based. on materials collected in
the course of preliminary inquiry before the complaint under
Section 340 is filed. This is a situation where in terms of Section
343, the Trial Magistrate shall straightway deal therewith as if it
was instituted on a police report as per Chapter XIX-A of the
B Code.
b) Where the judicial complaint is not preceded by a preliminary
inquiry and there is no material either by way of any statement or
document and the Trial Magistrate genuinely feels in the cause
of justice that even if there is a prima facie satisfaction of the
complaining court that the offence mentioned appears to have
C been committed, he can undertake a summary enquiry and on
•
the completion thereof, may decide on the complaint in accordance
withla.w. ·
c) Where though no preliminary inquiry had been made before ·
filing of the judicial complaint, the facts are so clear and obvious
D in endorsement of the prima facie satisfaction that the offence
had been committed and that it is expedient in the interests of
justice to have the same probed into further by the Trial
Magistrate, the Trial Magistrate shall deal with the case as if it
was instituted on a police report and follow the procedure under
E Chapter XIX-A of the Code. [Para 54) [196-G-H; 197-A-D]
8.1 Reverting to the case in hand, the complaint was filed
by the Trial Court stating that the respondent had committed an
. offence under Section 193 IPC, he having resorted to falsehood
on oath at the trial in order to screen the accused from the crime
F and to enable him to escape punishment. The offence alleged is
one included in -Section 195(1)(b), CrPC and is otherwise, having
regard to the punishment prescribed, to which, warrant procedure
would be applicable. In course of the arguments, it had transpired
that the Trial Magistrate had examined the complainant and some
other witnesses before framing charge against the respondent
G under the above provision of law. The High Court by the order
impugned however, had sustained the plea of the respondent that
as the complaint ought to have been construed to be a case
otherwise than on police report to which warrant procedure was
applicable, charge could not have been framed as the prosecution
H had not adduced all its evidence at that stage, as required
""'
(.'''
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ROBERT 173
VALES
under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. Significantly, no challenge has · A
been made to the legality and/or the validity of the order
under Section 340 or the complaint on any ground. It has also
not been asserted in the course of arguments that the evidence
already recorded is not sufficient to frame a charge, as had been
done by the Trial Magistrate. [Para 59) [200-D-H)
B
8.2 In view of the determination as above, the approach of
the High Court is wholly indefensible, as in the face of Section
343(1) of the Cr.P.C., the procedure prescribed for cases
instituted otherwise than on police report is not attracted qua a
complaint under Section 340 and/or Section 341, CrPC. Even C
assuming that the Trial Magistrate had examined few witnesses
in support of the complaint, it was in the form of a summary inquiry,
to be satisfied as to whether the materials on record would justify
the framing of charge against the respondent or not and nothing
further. Any other view would fly in the face of the ordainment
of Section 343(1) of the Cr.P.C. and thus cannot receive judicial D
imprimatur. The impugned judgment of the High Court in quashing
. the charge framed by the Trial Magistrate and remanding the
case to him to follow the procedure outlined for cases, instituted ·
otherwise than on police report, under Chapter XIX-B is on the
face of it unsustainable in law and on facts. It is thus set asi<Je.
The Trial Magistrate would proceed from the stage of framing of E
charge, strictly in compliance of the letter and spirit of the precept
contained in Section 343(1), CrPC. (Para 60] [201-A-D]
MS. Sheriff. P. C. Damodaran Nair v. State of Madras
AIR 1954 SC 397 : [1954) SCR 1229; Iqbal Singh
Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and F
Another (2005) 4 SCC 370: [2005] 2 SCR 708 -
followed.
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union
of India & Ors. (Decision of Bombay High Court) 1992
Crl.L.J. 3752; Mohan Lal Jatia v. Registrar General, G
Supreme Court of India (2010) Delhi Law Times 335 -
approved.
Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2002) 1 SCC
253 : [2001) 5 Suppl. SCR 302; Amarsang Nathaji v.
Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and Others (2017) 1 SCC H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 14 S.C.R.
A 113 : [2016) 12 SCR 80 ; K. Karunakaran v. T. V.
Eachara Warrier and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 18 :
[1978] 2 SCR 209 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 302 relied on Para 11
B
[2016] 12 SCR 80 relied on Para 11
· 1992 Crl.L.J. 3752 approved Para 12
[1!154] SCR 1229 followed Para35
[2005] 2 SCR 708 followed Para 36
c
[1978) 2 SCR 209 relied on Para 37
(2010) Delhi Law Times 335 approved Para 44
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos.1427-1428 of2017.
D
From the impugned Judgment and Final Orders dated 05-03-2013
and 30-07-2015 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Writ
Petition No.113 of2012 and Criminal Misc. Application No.35 of2015
respectively.
E Pratap Venugopal, Dileep Poolakot, Ms. Niharika, Aman Shukla,
Ms.Kanika Kalaiyarasan (for Mis K J John and Co.), Advs. for the
Appellant.
Trideep Pais, Pranav Jain and Gautam Narayan, Advs. for the
Respondent.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. Leave granted
2. The instant assailment of the judgment and order dated
05.03.2013 seeks to annul this verdict of the High Court whereby the
charge framed by the Trial Magistrate against the respondent under
G Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (for short hereafter to be referred
to as the "IPC") has been set aside, having been held to be prematured
and in violation of the procedure prescribed by Section 244 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, hereafter to be referred to as the
"Cr.P.C./Code"), as all evidence on behalf of the prosecution had not
H been adduced, the case being one registered on a complaint under Section
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ROBERT 175
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
340 Cr.P.C. and thus otherwise than on police report and the Trial A
Magistrate has been directed to examine the remaining witnesses of the
prosecution and thereafter decide as to whether any case had been
made out against the respondent for framing of charge. ·
· 3. The appellant/State, being aggrieved, has questioned the legality
and correctness of this view contending in substance that in terms of B
Section 343 Cr.P.C., the case though registered on a complaint under
Section 340 thereof, was to be dealt with as if instituted on a police
report for which the rigour of the procedure under Section 244 of Cr.P.C.
was inapplicable.
4. The legal issue raised, being of significant moment and c
consequence in the context of day to day adjudicative,relevance, merits
a riveted attention.
5. We have heard Mr. Pratap Venugopal, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Trideep Pais, learned counsel for the respondent.
6. The factual conspectus is on a limited canvas. It is a matter of D'
record that in Sessions CaseNo.18/2000 - titled State vs, Srikar Naik
Kurade and others, under Sections 120B-and 302 IPC along with Section
'.2.5 of the Arms Act, 1959 tried by the Court of Sessions, Margao, the
respondent was a witness cited by the prosecution. Before his deposition
on oath at the trial, his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. E
by the concerned Magistrate. While testifying in the session's trial, he
resiled from this statement so much so that the Sessions Court was of
the view that the respondent along with two other witnesses, who had
similarly retracted from their earlier statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
had tendered false evidence warranting initiation of a proceeding for the
offence under Section 193 IPC. Accordingly, however without conducting F
any inquiry as permissible under Section 340 Cr.P.C., and in view of the
prima facie satisfaction that the respondent and the other two witnesses
have deliberately made contradictory statements on oath in order to
screen and/or favour the accused in the session's trial, the Sessions
Court by order dated 14.08.2003 directed that they be prosecuted by G
filing separate complaints against them under Section 193 IPC. While
adopting this course, the Sessions Court recorded that it was not
peremptory to hold an inquiry under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, a complaint was filed on 29.11.2003 under Section
193 IPC against the respondent by the District and Sessions Judge, H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 14 S.C.R.
A Margao which was registered as Criminal Case No.380/5/2003/III in
the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Margao.
8. The above facts were set out in the complaint with the
elaboration that the statement of the respondent under Section 164 Cr.P. C.
was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 18.02.2000 whereas his
B deposition as PW-22 in the Sessions Case was scripted on 10.10.2002 in
course whereof he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the
prosecution. The complaint did set out one set of such irreconcilable
versions to highlight the perceived blatant falsehood deliberately resorted
to by the witness for helping the accused to escape punishment. The
document cited six witnesses understandably in addition to the complainant.
c
9. In the proceedings that followed, the prosecution examined
three witnesses from the list apart from the Additional Sessions Judge
who had presided over the session's trial, who were duly cross-examined
on behalf of the respondent whereafter the learned Magistrate instead
of insisting on the examination of the remaining witnesses in the list,
D framed charge against the respondent under Section 193 IPC. ·
10. On 02.07 .2008, the application filed by the respondent before
the Trial Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings against him having
been rejected, he unsuccessfully filed a revision in the Court of the
Sessions Judge, whereafter he took the challenge to the High Court. By
E the impugned order, as aforementioned, the High Court has quashed the
charge framed against the.respondent proceeding on the premise that
the case was one instituted otherwise than on the basis of police report
and the offence being triable by warrant procedure, a rigid compliance
of Section 244 Cr.P.C. was called for. The charge framed by the Trial
F Magistrate was held to be unjustified and prematured and after quashing
the same, it has directed the Trial Court to follow the procedure under
Section 244 Cr.P.C., by examining the remaining witnesses of the
prosecution and thereafter to decide whether any case had been made
out for framing of charge against the respondent. The application filed
by the prosecution seeking a review or recall of this order by the High
G Court, filed belatedly was however rejected, there being no clerical
mistake or any justification to invoke the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant/State, referring to Section
343(1) Cr.P.C. in particular, has urged thatthe High Court had fallen in
H error in interfering with the charge framed against the respondent on the
.STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ ROBERT 177
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.) -
presupposition that the procedure prescribed by Section 244 Cr.P.C. with - A -
full rigidity was applicable to the case in hand. 'It has been argued that in
terms of Section 343(1), a Magistrate to whom a complaint is made
under Section 340 or Section 341, notwithstanding anything contained in
Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., is required to deal with the case, as if it was
instituted on a police report and thus vis-a-vis the offences mentioned in - i3
Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate, on receiving the complaint, has 0
to deal withit under Sections 238 to 243 Cr.P.C. as if it were instituted
on police report to which warrant procedure was applicable. Qua the
delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, it has be.en urged that having
regard io the importance of the legal issue involved as well as the
explanation provided, it ought to be condoned. Reliance has been placed C
on the decisions of this Court in Pritish Vs. State ofMaharashtra and
others1 and 'Amarsang Nathaji Vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and_
~~- .
12. Per contra;the.Iearned c·ounsel for the respondent has argued
-that having regard to the text of Section 343(1) Cr.P.C. and more -D
particularly the words "as far as may be", the plea that every case
registered on a c~mplaint under Section 340 or Section 34 J Cr.P.C. ought
to be proceeded with as one instituted on p0lice report under Chapter
XIX-A i.e. as p,er the procedure laid down in Sections 238 to 243 is
patently flawed. While endorsing the view taken by th<'. High Court, it
_has been asserted that the decisions cited on behalfof the prosecution in E
support of the contention of applicability of Chapter XIX-A Ct.P. C. are
-distinguishable. According to the learned counsel in the face of the inbuilt
flexibility ingrainedjn Section 343(1) Cr.P.C. as is apparent from the
words "as far as maybe" used in the text thereof, it is p~lpably erroneous
to contend that a case contemplated Therein·would have to be invariably -· p
dealt with as one instituted on a police report. Drawing sustenance from
the decision of the Bombay High Court i~ God~er & Boyce
Manufactt}ring Co. Pvt. Ltd,. vs. Union ofIndia & Ors. 3 , dwell!ng on
t~e purport of the words "as far as may be", it has been urged that
thereby the le_arned Magistrate was. permitted to a~opt the procedure
envisaged in Section 244 Cr.P.C .. Contending·that the pn'::sent is a case G
.-principally founded on the statements of the complainant and the learned
Public ProS$CUtor in 'particular an,d that_ out of the cited witnesses three
1 ". •:
(2002) 1 sec 253
2
c2011) 1sec113
- ' 1992 Crl.L.J. 3752 H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14S.C.R.
A of them have already been examined, it ought to be proceeded with as
one instituted otherwise than on police report in accordance with the
mandate of Section 244 Cr.P.C. Further the delay of 896 days in filing
the present appeal apart from being inordinate has remained unexplained
for which it is liable to be dismissed jn limine on this count alone.
B 13. We have extended our cautious attention to the contentious
assertions as well as the materials presently available on record. Having
regard to the inter se bearing of the cognate provisions of the Code,
decisively. relevant to address the issue, an overview thereof, is
indispensable. The expressions "complaint", "inquiry", "investigation",
"police report", "summons-case" and "warrant-case" are defined in
C Sections 2(d), 2(g), 2(h), 2(r), 2(w) and 2(x) of the Code respectively
and are extracted hereinbelow for immediate reference:
(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to
a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code,
that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed
D an offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation.-A report made by a police officer in a case which
discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable
offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer
by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the
E complainant.
(g) "inquiry" means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted
under this Code by a Magistrate or Court;
(h) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code
for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by
F
any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a
Magistrate in this behalf;
(r) "police report" means a report forwarded by a police officer
to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 173;
G (w) "summons-case" means a case relating to an offence, and
not being a warrant-case;
(x) "warrant-case" means a case relating to an offence punishable
with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term
exceeding two years;
H
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ ROBERT 179
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
14. As would be evident from the definitions recited, a "complaint" A
is an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to
take action under the Code against some person, known or unknown,
who had committed an offence and does not include a police report. In
contradistinction, "police report" means a report forwarded by a police
officer to a Magistrate under Section 173(2), whereas "warrant case" is B
one relatable to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life
or punishment for a term exceeding two years, a "summons-case" is
one qua an offence which is not a "warrant-case". A clear cut distinction,
therefore, has been ordained by the Code between a "complaint" and a
"police report" as well as a "warrant-case" and a "summons-case".
IS.Notably, "inquiry" means every inquiry other than a trial C
conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or Court. Distinguished from
"inquiry", which is to be undertaken by a Magistrate or a Court, as
prescribed, "investigation" includes all proceedings under the Code for
the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person
(other than a Magistrate), who is authorized by a Magistrate in that D
regard.
16. Section 195 of the Code deaJS with prosecution for contempt
of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justi):e
and for offences relating to documents given iri' evidence. Sub-:section
( 1) thereof, which is relevant for the present pursuit, clamps an embargo E
on the cognizance by any court of any offence, as mentioned therein, in
clauses (a) and (b) thereof. Whereas, vis-a-vis the offences enumerated
in clause (a), such cognizance is permissible only on a complaint in writing
of the public servant concerned orof some other public servant to whom
he is administratively subordinate, in re offences cataglogued in clause
(b), a complaint in writing of the Court or by such officerofthe Court, as F
that Court may authorise in writing or of some other Court to which that
Court is subordinate, is an imperative precondition.
17. Here, the Court would have to be one in the proceedings
whereof or in relation whereto, the offences set- out in clause (b) are
alleged to have been committed. Suffice it to state for the instant purpose, G
that the offences detailed in clauses (a) and (b), having regard .to the
punishments prescribed therefor, give rise to "summons" as well
"warrant-cases''. An offence under Section 193 IPC however would
constitute a warrant case.
H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A 18. Chapter XIV of the Code dwells on the conditions requisite
for the initiation of proceedings under the Code. Section 190 provides
that any Magistrate of the first Class and any Magistrate of secon~
class specifically empowered in this behalfunder sub-section (2) thereof,
may take cognizance of any offence -
B (a) upoa receiving a complaint of facts which ·constitute such
offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts; ·
· (c) upon information received from any person other than a police
officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been
C committed.
19. Avoiding the unnecessary details, it is enough to record that
after an information is laid with the police inrespect of an.offence, as
provided for in Chapter XII of the Code and on completion of the
investigation in connection therewith, the office_r)n-charge of the
D concerned police station is required to submit a report to the jurisdictional
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on such repo1t,
under Section 173 thereof. This police report as referred to in sub-section
(2), needs to be in a form prescribed by the State Government and ought
to mention inter alia, the names of the parties, the nature of the
E information, the names of the persons, who appear to be acquainted
with the circumstances of the case, whether an offence appears to have
been committed and if so by whom, and whether the accused has been
arrested and released. Sub-section (8) of Section 173, however, does
not preclude further investigation, even after submission of such report
so as to enable the investigating agency to forward to the Magistrate a
F further report or reports regarding such evidence as may be obtained.
This police report, as has been referred to in Section 190, is one of the
inputs available to the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence, as.
disclosed thereby.
20.In terms of Section 200,_ if however a complaint is filed in a
·G court oflaw, as is contemplated in clause (a) of Section 190, a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence on the basis thereof, has to examine
·upon oath, the complainant and the witnesses present, if any and the
substance of such examination has to be reduced in writing, to be signed
by the complainant and the witnesses and also· by the Magistrate. The
H mandate of examining the complainant and the witnesses is relaxed:
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 181
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge A
of his public duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to
another Magistrate under Section 192.
21. In terms of Section 202, any Magistrate, on receipt of-a
complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or B
which has been made over to him under Section i 92, may, if he thinks
· fit, and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond ·
the area in which he exercises his _jurisdiction, postpone the issu~ of
process against the accused· and either inquire into the case himself or
direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other c
person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not, there
is sufficient ground for proceeding. The direction for such investigation,
however, is not permissible - a) where, it appears to the Magistrate that
the offence complained ofis triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions;
· or b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the
complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on D
oath under Section 200 ..
22.ln an "inquiry", as construed necessary as above,· the
Magistrate may, ifhe thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath and if
the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions,
he would call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and .E
examine them on oath. As per Section 204, if in the opinion of a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding,
and the case appears to be - (a) a summons-case, he would issue
., .
summons for the attendance of the accused in a summons-case, and if it
is (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a F
summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain
time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself), before
some other Magistrate havingjurisdiction.
23. A cumulative review of the provisions pertaining tb -the
cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate on a complaint would evince G
that a Magistrate, if he thinks fit, even after the examination of the
complainant and the witnesses present, atthe time of taking cognizance
may postpone the issuance of process, if he construes it to be fit_ to
either cause an inquiry to be made by himself or direct an investigation
to be made by a police officer or such other person, as he thinks fit, for
being satisfied as to whether or not, there is sufficient ground for H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A proceeding. A Magistrate, however; need not examine the complainant
and the witnesses, if a pubic servant acting or purporting to act in the
discharge ofhis official duties or a Court has made the complaint. There
is however no restraint on him to cause an inquiry to be made by himself
even on such a complaint for the purpose of deciding whether or not
B there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This allowance is assuredly to
secure the ends of justice and to avoid/obviate even the remotest
possibility ofany avoidable prosecution.
24. Chapter XIX is devoted to trial of warrant cases by l\.~agistrate
and enfolds two categories i.e. A-cases instituted on a police report and
B- cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. In the former
C category i.e. cases instituted on a police report, the successive stages
comprehended after the accused appears or is brought before a
Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, have been detailed. These
are accommodated in Sections 238 to 243.
25. In terms of Section 23 8, when, the accused appears or is
D brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the
Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions
of Section 207 i.e. the accused has been furnished without delay, free of
cost, a copy of er.::h of the records/documents mentioned therein, which
includ~: the police report, referred to hereinabove and the papers
E accompanying the same. If upon considering the police report and the
documents sent along with it under Section 173 and making such
examination if any of the accused, as the Magistrate may think necessary,
and if after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of
being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to
be groundless, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for
F so doing. On the other hand, ifupon such consideration and examination
if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this
Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his
opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing,
G a charge against the accused, which would be read and explained to the
latter and he would be asked whether he pleads guilty to the offence
charged or claims to be tried. Noticeably, these two eventualities
encompassed in Sections 239 and 240 of the Code though contemplate
examination of the accused, if the Magistrate thinks it necessary, no
witness of the prosecution can be examined at that stage and the
H
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ROBERT 183
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
Magistrate would decide as to whether the charge is to be framed or not A
on the basis of the materials available i.e. the police report and the
accompanying papers as well as the statement of the accused, if
recorded, of course after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the
sides.
26. Whereas Section 241 empowers the Magistrate, ifthe accused B
pleads guilty, to record such plea and in his discretion, convict him thereon,
in terms of Section 242, the Magistrate woulq fix a date for examination
of the witnesses if the accused refuses to plead guilty or does not plead
so, or claims to be tried. After the closure of the evidence of the
prosecution, in course whereof, the accused would have a right to cross-
C
examine its witnesses, he would be called upon to enter upon his defence
and produce his evidence _and after recording his statement, if it is also
prayed by him, the Magistrate would issue such process for the attendance
of any witness for the purpose of examination and cross-examination, or
for production of any document or other thing, unless it is considered
that such an application should be refused on the ground that it is vexatious D
or had been made for the purpose of delay or for defeating the ends of
justice. At the end of the trial, on the c·ompletion of the process, as
above, ifthe Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an
order of acquittal. However, if the Magistrate finds the accused guilty,
but does not proceed in accordance with the Secti<:ms 325 or 360 of the
Code, he would, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, E
pass sentence upon him according to law.
27. With regard to cases instituted otherwise than on police report,
the procedure is outlined in Sections 244 to 247 of the Code. In terms of
Section 244, when in any warrant case, instituted otherwise than on
police report, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, F
the latter shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence
as may be produced, in support of the prosecution. It is mbsequP~~
thereto, as per Section 245, that ifupon taking all the evidence so µrodLced,
the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against
the11ccused has been made out, which if unrebutted, would warrant his G
conviction, the Magistrate would discharge him. Section 245(2)
empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused at any previous stage
of the case, if, for reasons to be recorded by such magistrate, he considers
the charge to be groundless. In case, however, when such evidence has
been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of the
H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20171 f4 S.C.R.
A opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed
an offence triable under the Chapter, which such Magistr~te is competent
to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he
shall frame. in writing, a charge against the accused, as ordained by
Section 246( 1). Thereafter, the charge shall be read and explained to the
accu.sed, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any
B
defence to make. If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record
the plea, and may, in his discretion, convict.him thereon. However, if the
accused refuses to plead guilty or does not plead so or claims to be tried,
he shall be required to state, at the commencement of the next hearing
of the case, or, ifthe Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so
c thinks fit, forthwith, whether, he wishes to cross-examine any, and if so,
which of the witnesses for the prosecution, whose evidence has been
taken and if he elects to do so, the witnesses named by him, would be
recalled and, after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they
would be discharged.As per Section 246(6), the evidence of the remaining
D witnesses for the prosecution would next be taken and after cross-
examination and re-examination, if a.ny, they shall also be discharged. I!
is subsequent thereto, that in terms of Se.ctiQn 247; the accused would
then be called upon to enter upon his defence· and produce his evidence;
and thereafter the provisions of Section 243, applicable for cases instituted
on a police report, would apply. Eventually, ho.wever, depending upon
E whether the accused has been fotmd guilty or not, the order of convictioi:i
or acquittal.would follow.
28. The strikingly distinguishable feature in the procedures to be
adopted_for cases instituted on a police r~port and those instituted
otherwise than on a police report, lies in the fact that whereas in the
.p . former, there is no·scope for the prosecution to examine any witness at
the stage where the Magistrate is to consider whether a charge is to be
·framed or not, in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, after.
.
the accused appears or is brought before the.
Magistrate, the prosecution
is required to adduce all such evidence in support of his case, whereupon
. G the Magistrate may discharge the accused, ifhe is of the view, for reasons
to be recorded on the basis of such.evidence, that no case had been
made out against him, which ifunrebutted, would warrant his conviction.
However, ifthe Magistrate is of the opinion, in view of such evidence, or
also at any previous stage of the case, that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence triable under the Chapter
H and which he is competent to try and adequately punish, he shall frame,
'<
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ROBERT 185
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
a charge against the accused. Subsequent thereto, if the accused refuses A
to plead guilty or does not plead so or claims t9 be tried, vis-a-vis the
· charge, he would be offered an opportunity to cross-examine any of the
witnesses of the prose.cution, whose evidence had been taken anq on
which the charge is founded and if the accused elects to avail this
oppo1tunity, the witnesses n(lmed by him would be recalled and after
i3 -
cross-examination and re-examination, they shall be discha'rged, Thus,
not only the prosecution, in the cases instituted otherwise than on a police
report, would have an opportunity to adduce all such evidence in support
of its case on which, on a consideration whereof, the accused may be
charged or discharged, as the case may be, the latter can avail the
opportunity of cross-ex~mining the witnesses only after the .cl1arge is c
framed. As Section 246(6) would authenticate, the prosecution would.
thereafter hav~ another chance _of examining the remaining witnesses,
who understan~ably, if examined, would be subjected to cross"
exami11ation .and re-examination. before their discharge.
29. Clrnpter XX deals with trial' of summons-cases· by the D
· Magistrates in which, after the accused appears or is brought before the
Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused, shall
be stated to him and he would be asked whether he pleads guilty or has
any defence to make, but it would not !le necessary to frame a formal
charge. If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate would record the
plea as nearly.as possible in the words used by him and may, in his . E
discretion, convict him thereon. If however, the Magistrate does not·
convict the accused, he shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take
all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and
also hear the accused and take all such evidence as he would produce in
.his defence arid record acquittal or conviction, as the case may be. The · F
other aspects under Chapters XIX and XX on the trial of warrant-cases
arid summons-cases by Magistrates, being of no significance qua the
issue involved, have not been adverted to.
30. We next turn to Chapter XXVI on the "Provisions as to
offences affecting the administration of justice", the center piece of G
scrutiny. As per. Section 340 of the Code, captioned as "Procedure in.
cases mentioned in Section 195", when upon an application made to it in
this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in
the interests of justice that an· inquiry should be made into any offence
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section{ I) of Section 195, which appears
H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or
as the case may be in respect of a document produced or given in
evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may after such
preliminary enquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary:
(a) record a finding to that effect;
B (b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused
before such Magistrate, or ifthe alleged offence is non-bailable
C and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in
custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before
such Magistrate.
31. This power in the eventualities, as enumerated in sub-section
D (2), can be exercised by the Court to which the former Court is subordinate
within the meaning of Section 195(4). Sub-section (3) requires that such
a complaint has to be signed by the authorities as mentioned therein.
The two essential pre-requisites, as predicated by this provision, are
formation of an opinion (I) even if prima facie, that an offence referred
E to Section 195( 1)(b) appears to have been committed in or in relation to
a proceeding of the Court or as the case may be in respect of any
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court
and (2) it is expedient in the interests ofjustice that an enquiry should be
made into such offence.
32. It is no longer res integra that the preliminary enquiry, as
F
comprehended in Section 340, is not obligatory to be undertaken by the
Court before taking the initiatives as contained in clauses (a) to (e) while
invoking its powers thereunder. Section 341 provides for an appeal against
an order either refusing to make a complaint or making a complaint
under Section 340, whereupon the superior court may direct the making
G of the complaint or withdrawal thereof, as the case may be. Section 343
delineates the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate taking
cognizance. This provision being of determinative significance is quoted
hereinbelow:
"343: Procedure of Magistrate taking cognizance: - (1) A
H Magistrate to whom a complaint is made under section 340 or
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 187
VALES ~ i\MITAVA ROY, J.]
section 341 shall, notwithstanding a.qything contained in Chapter A
XV, proceed, as far as ma" !:-e, to d~al with the case as if it were
instituted on a police repL't!.
(2) Where it is brought to the notice of such Magistrate, or of
any other Magistrate to whom the case may have been
transferred, that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived B
at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen,
he may, if he thinks fit, at any stage, adjourn the hearing of the
case until such appeal is decided."
33. As sub-section (I) of Section 343 would unequivocally testify,
a Magistrate to whom a complaint is made under Section 340 or Section c
341 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter XV of the Code
i.e. the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate taking cognizance on a
complaint, proceed as far as may be to deal with the case as if it was
instituted on a police report. Whereas Section 344 prescribes summary
procedure for trial for giving false evidence, Section 345 outlines the
procedure in certain cases of contempt committed in the view or presence D
of any Court as mentioned therein. Section 346 prescribes the procedure
where the Court considers that the case should not be dealt with in the
manner as set-out in Section 345, whereupon the Magistrate to whom
any case "is forwarded would proceed to deal therewith, as far as may
be, as if it were instituted on a police report. E
34. Before dilating on the legislative intendment entrenched in
Section 343( I) in particular, expedient it would be to traverse the
authorities cited at the Bar for the desired insight into underlying objective
of Section 340 and its bearing on the procedure to be adopted by the
Trial Magistrate while dealing with a complaint thereunder. F
35. The question posed before the Constitution Bench of this Court
in M.S. Sheriff, P.C. Damodaran Nair vs. State of Madras 4 , was
whether an appeal would lie under Section 476-B of the Cr.P.C. (as it
was then) from an order of a Division Bench of a High Court directing
the filing of a complaint for perjury. Answering in the affirmative, this G
Court declined however to intervene with the order by observing that
the only relevant consideration at that stage being the satisfaction of the
High Court as to whether it was expedient in the interests of justice that
an inquiry ought to be made into the offence whichprimafacie appeared
to have been committed, no interference was warranted. This was more
4
AIR 1954 SC 397 H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A so as the High Court' had scrntinized the evidence minutely and had
disclosed ample materials on which a judicial mind could reasonably
reach the conclusion that it was a matter which required investigation in
a Criminal Court and that it was expedient in the interests of justice to
have it inquired into. The apparent legal enunciation, as can be discerned,
from the above observations is that at the stage of lodging of a comp la.int
B
under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the decisive consideration is the satisfaction
derived-by the Complaining Court that it was expedient in the interests .. ·
of justice that an inquiry ought to be made by a Criminal Court into an
' offence which otherwise appeared to have been committed in connection
with the proceedings before it and affecting the administration of justice.
c 36.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Manvah
and another vs. llfeenakslti Manvah and anot!ter5, while dealing with
the ambit of the restraint contained in Section 195 with regard to lodging
of complaint vis-a-vis the offences referred to in sub-section (l)(b )(ii) in
particular' did rule as well on the import of Section 340 of the Code. It
D prop.ounded that the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. does not make
it imperative for a Court to make a complaint regarding commission of
an offence referred to in Section 195( 1)(b) as the Section is conditioned
by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of
justice" which demonstrate that such a course would be adopted only if
in the interests ofjustice, it is required and not otherwise. In elaboraiion,
E it was held that before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a
preliminary inquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient
in the interests of justice that inquiry should be made into any of the
offences referred to in Section 195( I )(b) and that this expediency would
normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury
F suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document but
.having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has
upon the administration of justice. This elucidation reiterates the pre-
requisites for initiating an action under Section 340 of the Code, the
impelling factor being the concern for sustaining the purity of the process
of adminis_tration ofjustice. ·
G
37. We refer to the decision ~fthis Court in J(. J(arunakaran vs.
T. V. Eachara Warrier and Anr. 6 , to recall the observations made therein
that in an inquiry held by the Court under Section 340( 1) of the Code,
'(2oos) 4 sec 370
H "(1978) 1sec18
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 189
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
irrespective of the result of the main case, th.e only question is whether A
a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, may have a
reason~ble likelihood to establish the specified offence and whether it is
also expedient in the interests of justice to take such action. Further, at
the trial, the reasons recorded in the order under Section 340( 1) sho.uld
not weigh with the Criminal Court In coming to its independent conclusion B
whether the offence, as alleged, has been fully established beyond
reasonable doubt and it would be for the prosecution to establish all the
ingredients Of such offence and the decision would be based only on the
evidence produced before the Criminal Coutt during the trial and its
conclusion would be independent of the opinion fonned by the complaining
court under Section 340( 1). It was explicated that the fact that the prima c
facie case had been laid out for laying a complaint, does not mean that
the charge has been established against a person beyond reasonable
doubt which would have to be assayed in details at the trial by the patties
who would have opportunity to produce evidence and controvert each i
others case exhaustively without any reservation. ·
.D
'
38. This Court in Pritislz 1 did embark upon the purport and scope
of Sections 340 and 343 of the Code and the procedure to be followed
by the Trial Magistrate before whom a complaint is made.
39. Dwelling upon the expanse of Section 340, to start with, it was·
propoun~ed that the hub tlrereof was the formation of an opinion by the E
Court, before which the proceedings were pending prior to the complaint,
that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be ·
made into an offence which appears to have been committed. It was
underlined that though In order to form such an opinion, the Court was
empowered !_o hold a preliminary inquiry, it was not obligatory to do so
and even without such preliminary inquiry, the-Comt could form such an F
opinion. It was observed ~hat thou.gh the Court even after forming such
an opinion was not obligated to make a complaint, but once it decides to
do so; it has to make a finding to the effect that in the fact situation, it is
expedient in the interests of justice that the offence should be fu1ther
probed into. It was underlined that absence' of any preliminary inquiry G
would not vitiate a finding ifreached;that it is expedient in the interests·
ofjustice that an inquiry should be made into the offence which appears .
to have been committed. This Court recorded as well that the preliminary
inquiry contemplated was not for finding as to whether a particular person
. w~s_guilty or not but only to decid_e as to whether it is expedient in the
H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 14 S.C.R.
A interests of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have
been committed. Referring to Section 343 of the Code, it was held that
the Trial Magistrate on receiving the complaint has to proceed in
accordance with the procedure set out in Chapter XIX and proceed
under Section 238 to Section 243 of the Code. Elaborating on these
provisions, this Court propounded that as required under Section 238 of
B
the Code, the Trial Magistrate would be required at the outset to satisfy
himself that the copies of all relevant documents have been S!Jpplied to
the accused and consider the complaint and the documents sent with it
in terms of Section 239. It was mentioned as well that the Magistrate
could also examine the accused if thought necessary and after hearing
C the prosecution and the accused could discharge the accused if the
allegation against him were found to be groundless.
40.However ifthe Magistrate was of the opinion that there was
ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, he
would be required to frame a charge in writing against the accused, read
D and explain the same to him and ifhe does not plead guilty, to proceed to
conduct the trial. This Court emphasized that until this stage, the inquiry
would continue before the Trial Magistrate.
41.lt was highlighted that the inquiry entrusted to the Trial
Magistrate by filing the complaint, as comprehended in Section 2{g) of
E the Code was to be $Ill inquiry other than a trial and would continue till
the Trial Magistrate would either discharge the accused if the allegations
are found to be groundless or frame a charge against him in writing, ifhe
was of the opinion in the aforesaid inquiry that there was ground for
presuming that the accused had committed the offence.
F 42. This Court adverted to the decision of the Constitution Bench
in M.S. Sheriff, to highlight that the Court at the stage envisaged in
Section 340 of the Code would not decide the guilt or innocence of the
party against whom the proceedings are to be instituted before the
Magistrate and at that stage it was to examine as to whether it was
expedient in the interests ofjustice that an inquiry should be made into
G any offence affecting the administration ofjustice and that no expression
of the guilt or innocence of the persons should be made while passing
the order under Section 340 of the Code. That the scope of the scrutiny
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was to ascertain whether it could decide on
the materials available that the matter requires inquiry by a criminal
H
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 191
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
court and that it was expedient in the interests of justice to have an A
inquiry iriti:i was uriderscored. It was expressed in clear terms that at the _
stage of analysis under Section 340 of the Code for the above purpose,
there was rio legal obligation to afford an opportunity to the persons
against whom the complaint could eventually be ma:de.
43. InAmarsang Nathaji1, the decision of the jurisdictional High B
Court to file a complaint under Section 340 of the Code against the
appellant, in view of false statements made in the documents and
declarations offered to be read as evidence which was perceived to
have the potential of affecting the administration of justice, was
impeached. Therein the two pre-conditions for invocation of Section
340 Cr.P.C. namely, (I) materials on record ought to make out a prima C
facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into the offence (as
referred to in Section 195( 1)(b) and (2) expediency in the interests of
justice to cause an inquiry to be made into the alleged offence were
enumerated. While observing that a mere contradictory statement by a
person in a judicial proceeding per se might not always be sufficient to D
justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal
Code, it was emphasized that in any view of the matter, the Court has to
form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests ofjustice to initiate an
inquiry into the offence perceived and that to put it differently, the
satisfaction of the Court of the essentiality of such an inquiry in the
interests of justice is the pre-requisite to activate the process under E
Section 340(1 ). It was however clarified that for the opinion of the Court
that for an inquiry into the offence which appears to have been committed
the satisfaction has to be pr Ima facie. It was held as we II that to derive
that satisfaction, a preliminary inquiry is- not mandatory, if the Court is
otherwise in a position to form such an opinion and that even after the F
tormation of such opinion, filing of a complaint is not peremptory. After
. referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal
Si11gh Marwah 5 , which explicated inter alia that the expediency for
the inquiry in the interests of justice would normally be judged by the
Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person
affected by such forgery or forged document but the effect or impact G
thereof upon the administration ofjustice, it was held that in the facts of
the case, the Court had not adhered to the requirements prescribed under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. to form its opinion. While parting however, with
reference to Section 343 of the Code, it was enunciated that the Trial
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A Magistrate having regard to the offences mentioned in Section 340 Cr.P.C.
has to follow the procedure for trial of warrant cases under Chapter
XIX Part A comprising of Section 238 to Section 243 Cr.P.C.
44. In Mohan Lal Jatia vs. ·Registrar General, Supreme Coud
of lndiaZ, the issue as to whether, in terms of Section 343( 1) of the
B Code the Trial Magistrate is mandatorily required to adopt the procedure
set out in Chapter XIX-B thereof by treating the complaint filed under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. to be a case instituted otherwise than on police
report fell for scrutiny. The prefatory facts reveal that the complaint
was filed following an investigation by the Central Bureau oflnvestigation
(for short, "GBf') ·on the direction of this Court to inquire into the alicgation
c of filing o(false affidavit before it. The CBI on the completion of the
investigation submitted its report recommending prosecution amongst
others of the appella11tunder Sections 120B, 193, 218, 468, 471, 420 IPC
r/w Section 511 ofIPC whereupon a complaint was made under Section
340 Cr.P.C. by the Registrar General of this Com1 before the concerned
D Trial Magistrate:
45. The Delhi High Court in the above backdrop of facts and more
particularly the investigation c011ducted by the CBI and the report .
submitted by it on the basis thereof held that the mandate of Section
343(1) of the Code was clear that either the offences against the
E administration of justice should be tried summarily by the concerned
Court or if the complaint is filed by the Court regarding such offences,
the complaint should be treated as a police report and the trial has to be
conducted in the same manner as of a warrant case on police report. It
was thus.rulecHhat the procedure prescribed for dealing with the complaint
as a case instituted otherwise than on police report would be inapplicable.
F · It was more so as the complaint in the case was preceded by an
investigation by the CBI which therefore ruled out the necessity of any
pre-charge evidence.
46. The Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce3 did address as
well the procedur~ to be adopted by the Trial Magistrate qua a complaint
G filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. After adverting to the 41" Report of the
Law Commission of India which eventuated the legislation of the amended
Section 343 Cr.P.C. as it stands today, it- hcld that having regard in
particular to the term "as far as may be" applied in Section 343(1) Cr.P.C.
that a complaint so filed did not get transmuted to a police report ipso·
H 7 171(2010) Delhi Law Times 335
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES.@ ROBERT 193
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.] . .
facto and that the provision envisaged exceptions in given fact situations. A
Tracing from the definition of the word "complaint" in Section 2(d) of
the Code, it was expounded that when filed under Section 340, the
complaint would retain its basic characteristics of not beins a police
report so much so, that having regard to the flexible text of Section
343( 1) Cr.P.C., the proceedings on the basis thereof could not B
automatically be construed to be a case instituted on a police report. In
elucidation, it was observed that where the background of the complaint
is one where materials are uncomplicated and not confusing and had
been gathered sufficiently and satisfactorily both in regard to quality and
quantum, the Trial Magistrate could straightaway proceed as if in a case
instituted on a police report as the Court would then be equipped with C
the necessary materials which have to be furnished to the accused for
preparing his defence and nothing more is needed for commencement
and completion of the trial. However, it noted, that in a given case.where
due to the absence of such an inquiry by the Complaining Court or by
reason of its not being exhaustive or adequately detailed an appropriate
. D
procedure as in the proceedings instituted on a complaint could be found
fair and necessary. It was concluded thus that Section 343 therefore
permitted the Trial Magistrate to adopt the complaint procedure in such
a situation. The other aspects of the !is as examined therein being not of
direct relevance for the present purpose are not being adverted to.
47. To disinter in the above forensic backdrop, the legislative E
intendment ingrained in Section 343( 1) in particular, it would be essential
to recall at first, the precursor of this provision in the Code of Criminal
Procedur~, 1-898 i.e. Section 476, which was in following terms: ~
"476: (i) When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether
on application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, of opinion F
that it is expedient in the interests ofjustice that an inquiry should
be made into any offence referred to in Section 195, sub-section
(i), clause (b) or claus·e (c), which appears to have been
committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such
Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks G
necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint
thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court,
and shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class
having jurisdiction, and may take sufficient security for the
appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the·
H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A alleged offence is non-bailable may, if it thinks necessary so to
do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate, and may
bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
[Provided that, where the Court making the complaint is a High
B Court, the complaint may be signed by such officer of the Court
as the Court may appoint.]
For the purposes of this sub-section, a Presidency Magistrate
shall be deeined to be a Magistrate of the first class.
(2) Such Magistrate shall thereupon proceed according to law
c and as if upon complaint made under Section 200.
(3) Where it is brought to the notice of such Magistrate or of any
other Magistrate to whom the case may have been transferred,
that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the
judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen, he may, if
D he thinks fit, at any stage adjourn the hearing of the case until
such appeal is decided."
48. Sub-section (2) of Section 476, as it stood prior to the
amendment heralding the present Section 343( I) obligated the Magistrate
before whom the complaint was filed by a Court being of the view that
E an offence under Section I95( l)(b) or clause (c) (as it was then) appeared
to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court
and that it was considered expedient in the interests of justice that an
enquiry should be made into such offence, to proceed according to law
and as if upon complaint made under Section 200.
F 49. In the 41" Report of the Law Commission of India, Section
476 of the 1898 Code, amongst others, fell for scrutiny. While observing
that Section 476 was intended to be complementary to Section I 95 and
therefore ,its scope should be neither wider nor narrower than the latter,
it recommended as hereinbelowvis-a-vis Section 476(2):
G "35.3: Under Section 476(2), the Court to which a complaint is
made under Section 476 shall proceed "as ifupon complaint under
Section 200". It was suggested during our discussions that since
a complaint is made under Section 476 by a responsible judicial
officer (and after inquiry in most cases), the Court to which the
complaint is made need not and should not hold another inquiry
H
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ROBERT 195
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
under Chapter 16 but should issue process under Sectfon 204. I! A
was urged that when a superior Court had made a complaint, it
was inappropriate that a Magistrate should again hold an inquii:y
or dismiss it under Section 203. We,.however, felt that there was
no justification for totally dispensing with an inquii:y under Section
202. The Court making the complaint under Section 476 may not B
have made a thorough inquiry, and the Court taking cognizance
of the offence under Section 195 might like to have more materials .
before issuing process. The nature of the jurisdiction to be
exercised by the Magistrate under Sections 202 and 203 is not
always similar to the nature of the proceedings held by the
complaining Court under Section 476. For instance, under Section C
202, further "investigation" may be ordered, whereas an "inguii:y"
under Section 476 is of a limited nature. It would not be correct
to assume that one will serve the purpose of the other in every
case."
50. In response to the view expressed in course of the deliberations D
that the Court to which the complaint is made need not and should not
hold another inquiry under Chapter XVI, a complaint having been made
by a responsible Judicial Officer (and after inquiry in most cases) and
that therefore the Trial Magistrate should issue process under Section
204 without further enquiry, the Commission was of the comprehension
that there was no justification for totally dispensing with an inquiry under E
Section 202 as the Court making the complaint under Section 476 might
not have made a thorough inquiry and the Court taking cognizance of
the offence under Section 195 might in a given case, like to have more
materials before issuing the process. This is more so as in its opinion,_ the
nature of the jurisdiction to be exercised by the Magistrate under Sections F
202 and 203 was not always similar to the nature ofthe proceedings
held by the complaining Court under Section 476. This is mqre so, as the
inquiry under Section 476, even if conducted, is ofa limited nature and
may not serve the purpose of an inquiry und(:r Section 202 in every
case.
G
51. The above view of the Commission and the recommendations
stemming therefrom, are in accord with the expression "as far as may
be" engrafted in Section 343, the salient features whereof can be -
deciphered as: (i) a Magistrate dealing with a complaint under Section
340 or Section 341 has to proceed as far as may be to -aeal with the case
H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A as if it were instituted on a police report; (ii) this course the Magistrate
would follow notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter XV.
52. Noticeably, the expression "as far as may be" assuredly lends
some elasticity, relaxing the otherwise rigour of the legislative mandate
to deal with the complaint as a case instituted on a police report. It
B cannot be gainsaid that in absence of this discernible flexibility, the
Magistrate would be left with no option but to construe the complaint
under Section 340 or Section 341 to be a case as if instituted on a police
report, Section 343( 1) thus clearly marks an exception qua the procedure
to be adopted by the Trial Magistrate if the complaint is filed under
Section 340 or Section 341 of the Code. To reiterate, barring the
c perceptible flexibility as contained in the expression "as far as may be'',
the Magistrate is required to deal with the complaint as a case as if
instituted on a police report. The relaxation in this rigour is patently
traceable to the views/recommendations of the Law Commission, as
recorded hereinabove, whereby in a given fact situation, the legislative
D mandate to the Magistrate to treat a complaint under Section 340 or
Section 341 to be a case as ifinstituted on a police report notwithstanding
it would be open for him, if in his opinion, further materials are required
to enable him to proceed and forthat purpose, an inquiry is warranted to
undertake that exercise.
E 53. As noted hereinabove, in cases instituted on police report, as
is contained under Chapter XIX, the Trial Magistrate can discharge an
accused or frame a charge against him on a consideration only of the
police report and the documents, laid under Section 173 and the statement
made if any, by the accused in his examination and after affording an
opportunity of hearing both the sides. To repeat, at that stage, the
F prosecution has no scope to examine any witness and thus is not obligated
to adduce any evidence in support of its case.
54. Judged from the standpoint of interplay between Sections 340
and 343 of the Code, thus the following eventualities may arise:
G a) When a judicial complaint is based on materials collected in
the course of preliminary inquiry before the complaint under
Section 340 is filed. This is a situation where in terms of Section
343, the Trial Magistrate shall straightway deal therewith as ifit
was instituted on a police report as per Chapter XIX-A of the
Code.
H
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 197
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.)
b) Where the judicial complaint is not preceded by a preliminary A
inquiry and there is no material either by way of any statement
or document and the Trial Magistrate genuinely feels in the cause
of justice that even if there is a prima facie satisfaction of the
complaining court that the offence mentioned appears to have
been committed, he can undertake a summary enquiry and on B
the completion thereof, may decide on the complaint in
accordance with law.
c) Where though no preliminary inquiry had been made before
filing of the judicial complaint, the facts are so clear and obvious
in endorsement of the prima facie satisfaction that the offence
had been committed and that it is expedient in the interests of C
justice to have the same probed into further by the Trial
Magistrate, the Trial Magistrate shall deal with the case as if it
was instituted on a police report and follow the procedure under
Chapter XIX-A of the Code.
55. That Section 343(1) of the new Code has been cast in the D
mould, totally different from the one, as in Section 476(2) of the old.
Code, is crystal clear. Having regard to the· recommendations of the
Law Commission, as set-out hereinabove, the shift by the amendment is
from the detailed procedure, prescribed for a case registered on a
complaint i.e. instituted otherwise than on a police report. This is more E
so vis-a-vis a complaint case involving an offence to be tried by applying
the warrant procedure. Section 343( 1) of the Code now enjoins the Trial
Magistrate to deal with the complaint under Section 340 or Section 341
by treating it to be a case, as if instittited on a police report. There is
indeed a deeming element ingrained in the provision. Further, the
expression "as far as may be" does not foreclose wholly, at the same F
time the discretion of the Trial Magistrate, if he genuinely feels it
necessary, to get additional materials on record for his necessary
satisfaction to proceed thereafter as required in law. This element of
discretion conferred on the Trial Magistrate, in our comprehension, does
not either suggest or encourage any irreverence to the complaining court G
and the legislative intent is to ensure against avertable judicial proceedings
in the overall interest of justice. The amendment, while secures an
expeditious disposal of the complaint by treating it to be a case instituted
on a police report as far as may be without undergoing the rigour of the
elaborate procedure meant for a complaint case, has with the conferment
H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14S.C.R.
A of the discretion on the Trial Magistrate, as above provided the necessaty
balance to prevent even the remotest possibility of a lame prosecution.
56. In our view, Sections 200, 202, 204, 238 to 243, 340 and 343(1 ),
when juxtaposed to each other, would endorse the availability of a
discretion in the Trial Magistrate to conduct a semblance of inquity, if
B considered indispensable for proceeding with the complaint in accordance
with law. This is more so, amongst others, as a complaint under Section
340 or Section 341 may be filed even without holding a preliminaty inquity
into the facts, on which it appears to the complainant Court prima facie
that an offence, as contemplated, had been committed and that it is
expedient in the interests ofjustice that an inquity should be made into
c such offence by a Magistrate. In the event of a complaint being made
after a preliminary foquity, in which sufficient materials are obtained
following which a complaint is filed, to reiterate, it may not be necessary
for the Trial Magistrate to embark upon any further inquity to complement
the same. However, if no such preliminaty inquity is held and a complaint
D is filed, in the interest ofjustice and to obviate unwarranted prosecution,
the Trial Magistrate may, to be satisfied, feel the necessity of some
inquiry, summary though, to decide the next course of action in law. In
other words, ifthe Trial Court on receipt of a complaint is satisfied that
the materials on record are adequate enough, it shall, as per the mandate
contained in Section 343(1 ), deal with the case as ifinstituted on a police
E report. On the other hand, if the complaint has been filed without a
preliminary inquity, in our estimate, having regard to the inbuilt flexibility
in the text of Section 343(1), which cannot by any means be construed
to be an unnecessary appendage or surplusage, introduced by the
legislature, it would be open for the Trial Magistrate to hold a summary
F inquiyy before proceeding further with the complaint. As in any case, the
cause of justice would be paramount, the mandate in Section 343( I) to
the Trial Magistrate to deal with a complaint under Section 340 or Section
341 Cr.P.C. as a case instituted on a police report, if construed to be
inexorably absolute, would tantamount to neutering the expression "as
far as may be", which is impermissible when judged on the touchstone
G of fundamental principles ofjustice, equity and good conscience as well
as of interpretation of statutes. Though expectedly, a complaint under
Section 340 or Section 341 Cr.P.C. would be founded on materials in
support thereof and would also be preceded by a prima facie satisfaction
of the complaining Court with regard to the commission of the offence
H and the expediency ofan inquiry into the same in the interests ofjustice,
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 199
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
the plea of unavoidable compulsion of a Trial Magistrate to treat the A
same, as a case as if instituted on a police report, by totally disregarding
the necessity, even if felt, for further inquiry, does not commend
acceptance. True it is that the text of Section 343(1) otherwise portrays
a predominant legislative intent of treating the complaint under Section
340 and Section 341 to be a case, as if instituted on a police report, the B
presence and purport of the expression "as far as may be" by no means
can be totally ignored. This, in our estimate, acknowledges the discretion
of the Trial Magistrate to obtain further materials by way of an inquiry
even if summary in nature, if genuinely felt necessary in the interest of
justice for generating the required satisfaction to proceed in the matter
as ought to be in law. However, in exercising such discretion, the Trial C
Magistrate has to be cautiously conscious of the fact that the complaint
pertains to an offence affecting the administration of justice and is
preceded by a prima facie satisfaction of the complaining Court that the
same might have been committed and that it was expedient in the interests
of justice to inquire into the same. In other words, the discretion, as
D
endowed to the Trial Magistrate under Section 343(1) has to be very
sparingly exercised and only if it is genuinely felt that further materials
are required to be collected through an inquiry by him only to sub-serve
the ends of justice and avoid unwarranted judicial proceedings. This is
particularly as the Legislature, while designing Section 343(1) of the
Code, was fully conscious of the distinction between cases instituted on E
police report and otherwise and had amended Section 476(2) of the
1898 Code with due deference to the recommendations of the Law
Commission oflndia.
57. To recount, the Law Commission had in its r~commendations,
observed that the Court making the complaint under Section 476 (now F
under Section 340) may not make a thorough inquiry and the Trial
Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence then might like to have
more materials before issuing the process. It underlined that the nature
ofjurisdiction to be exercised by the Trial Magistrate under Sections 202
and 203 of the Code is always not similar to the nature of proceedings
held by the complaining court under Section 476 (now under Section G
340) and therefore, the inquiry under Section 476 (now Section 340)
being of a limited nature, may not in all eventualities, serve the purpose
of"investigation" as contemplated in Section 202 of the Code.
58. We are thus of the firm opinion that a Trial Magistrate, on
receipt ofa complaint under Section 340 and/or Section 341 of the Code, H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.
A ifthere is a preliminary inquiry and adequate material.sin support of the
considerations impelling action under the above provisions are available,
would be required to treat such complaint to constitute a case, as if
instituted on police report and proceed in accordance with law. However,
in absence of any preliminary inquiry or adequate materials, it would be
open for the Trial Magistrate, if he genuinely feels it necessary, in the
B
interest of justice and to avoid unmerited prosecution to embark on a
summary inquiry to collect further materials and then decide the future
course of action as per law. In both the eventualities, the Trial Magistrate
has to be cautious, circumspect, rational, objective and further informed
with the overwhelming caveat that the offence alleged is one affecting
C the administration of justice, requiring a responsible, uncompromising
and committed approach to the issue referred to him for inquiry and trial,
as the case may be. In no case, however, in the teeth of Section 343(1 ),
the procedure prescribed for cases instituted otherwise than on police
report would either be relevant or applicable qua the complaints under
Section 340 and/or 341 of the Cr.P.C.
D
59. Reverting to the case in hand, the complaint was filed by the
Trial Court stating that the respondent had committed an offence under
Section 193 IPC, he having resorted to falsehood on oath at the trial in
order to screen the accused from the crime and to enable him to escape
punishment. The offence alleged is one included in Section 195( 1)(b) of
E the Code and is otherwise, having regard to the punishment prescribed,
to which, warrant procedure would be applicable. In course of the
arguments, it had transpired that the Trial Magistrate had examined the
complainant and some other witnesses before framing charge against
the respondent under the above provision of law. The High Court by the
F order impugned however, to reiterate, had sustained the plea of the
respondent that as the complaint ought to have been construed to be a
case otherwise than on police report to which warrant procedure was
applicable, charge could not have been framed as the prosecution had
not adduced all its evidence at that stage, as required under Section 244
of the Cr.P.C. Significantly, no challenge has been made to the legality
G and/or the validity of the order under Section 340 or the complaint on
any ground. It has also not been asserted in the course of arguments
that the evidence already recorded is not sufficient to frame a charge,
as had been done by the Trial Magistrate.
H
STATE OF GOA v. JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES@ ROBERT 201
VALES [AMITAVA ROY, J:]
·"
60. In view of the determination as above, the approach of the A
High Court is wholly indefensible, as in the face of Section 343( I) of the
Cr.P.C., the procedure' prescribed for cases instituted otherwise than on
police report is not attracted qua a complaint under Section 340 and/or
Section 341 of the Code. Even assuming that the Trial Magistrate had
examined few witnesses in support of the complaint, it was in the form B
of a summary inquiry, to be satisfied as to whether the materials on
record would justify the framing of charge against the respondent or not
and nothing further. Any other view would fly in the face of the ordainment
of Section 343(1) of the Cr.P.C. and thus cannot receive judicial
imprimatur. The impugned judg1nent of the High Court in quashing the
charge framed by the Trial Magistrate and remanding the case to him to C
follow the procedure outlined for cases, instituted otherwise than on
police report, under Chapter XIX-B is on the face of it unsustainable in
law and on facts. It is thus set aside. The appeals are allowed. The Trial
Magistrate would proceed from the stage of framing of charge, strictly
in compliance of the letter and spirit of the precept contained in Section D
343( 1) of the Code. We make it clear that we have not offered any
observation on the merits of the charge and the Trial Court would further
the proceedings in accordance with law.
Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "complaint"Sign in to search