LexNANDINI SATPATHY versus DANI (P.L.) AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
608 A NANDINI SATPATHY V· DANI (P.L.) AND ANR. April 7, 1978 B (V. R. KRISHNA !YER, JASWANT SINGH AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.J c D E F G H Penal Code, (Act V). 1860-S.179-Whether mens rea forms a necessary component of S. 179-Defences open under Section 179 l.P.C. rlw Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, Criniinal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 161(2)-Paraineters of Section 16lt2), what are-Whether the tendency to expose a person to a criminal charge em- brance answers which have an inculpatory impact in other criminal cases in posse or in esse elsewhere,-"Any person supposed to be acquaintr:d'' in S. lbl (1) Whether includes an accused person or only a lvitness-When does an answer acquire confessional status within the meaning of S. 27 of Evidence Act. "Right to silence", when applicable-Constitutional right under Art. 20(3) exa1nined, explained and made explicit-Meaning of the word "accused" occur- ring in Art. 20(3) whether it includes a suspect-accused-Constitution of lndia, 1950, Art. 20(3). Examination of a witness by Police under S. 161-Eflect of proviso and marginal note, Cr!. P C., 1973. The appelJant, a former Chief Minister of Orissa and one time Minister at the National level was directed to appear at the Vigilance Police Station. Cuttack, in September, 1977 for being examined in connection with a case registered against her by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack u/s 5(2) read withs. 5(1)(d) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s. 161/165, 120B and 109 I.P.C. On the strength of the first informa- tion. in which the appellant, her son and others were shown as accused persons investigation was commenced. During the course of the investigation it was that she was interrogated with reference to a long string of questions, given to her in writing. The gravamen of the accusation was one of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known, licit sources of income and probable resources over ihe years of the accused, who occupied a public position and exercised public power for a long spell during which the appellant by receipt of illegal gratification aggrandised herself. Exercising her right of 'silence guaranteed under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution, the appel1ant refused to answer, with the result a, complaint was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (Directorate of Vigilance) Cuttack, against the appellant, under s. 179 I.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons of appearance against the appellant-accused. Ag.crieved by the action of the Magistrate and urging that the complaint did not and could not disclose an offence, the accused-appellant moved the High Court under Art. 226 oi the CciJ.stitution as well as under s. 401 of the Cr. P. Code, challenging the validity of the Magisterial proceeding. The broad submission, unsuccessfully made before the High Court, was that the charge rested upon a failure to answer interroga- tions by the police but this charge was unsustainable because the umbrella of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution and the immunity under Section 161(2) of the Cr. P. Code were wide enough to shield her in her refusal. The plea of un- constitutionality and illegality, put fonvard by this pre-emptiye proceeding was rebuffed and so th~ appellant appealed to this Court by certificate granted under Art. 132(1) resulting in two appeals. Allowing the appeals a.nd quashing the prosecution procecdinrs the Court • •. - ~ .... / 1" ' ... • .. - .• NANDINI SATPATHY V. DANI 609 HELD : 1. When a woman is commanded into a police station violating A the commandment of Section 160 of the Code when a heavy load of questions is handed in some permissible some not, where the area of constitutional pro- tection against self-crimination is (until this decision) blurred in some aspects, when, in this Court, counsel for the accused unreservedly undertakes to answer in the light of the law herein laid down, when the object of the prosecution is to compel contrite compliance with Section 161 Cr. P.C. abandoning all con- tun1acy and this is achieved by the undertaking, when the pragmatic issues in- volved are so com_plex that effective barricades against police pressure to secure self-incrimination need more steps as indicated in this judgment that persistence B in the prosecution is seeming ho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.