LexNIRANJAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
734
SUPREME CQURT REPORTS
[1956]
1956
course of the argument, and the appellant did not
even ask for this question being referred. That apart,
Meenokshi Mills,
,
.
f h d
C
,/ J
Madurai
m view o t e ecision in ommisBioner oJ
ncome-tax
v.
v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co.('), no purpose would
Th• Commissioner be served by directing a reference of this question,
o/ lncome·ta:r,
and the Tribunal was right in observing that "it is
Madra•
not even of academic interest to refer the said ques-
v ... katarama
tion to the High Court". On the question whether
Ayyar J.
the fixation of ratio was correct, we are of opinion
that it is a pure question of fact, and is not open to
reference under section 66(1).
In the result, the appeals fail, and are dismissed
with costs.
-
1956
October 3
NIRANJAN SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(and connected appeal)
[BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS and
GOVINDA MENON JJ.)
Criminal lrial-In,,.sligation of crime-Police Reg1tlations-
Oase diaty-S1tbminion of t/r.t -case diar11 I<> superior officers da11 to
da11-0ontra11ention of t/r.t rule-Whether it vitiates the trial-Utl<>r
Pradeah Polict Regulation•, r. 109.
Rule 109 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations dealing with
the investigation of crimes enjoins upon the police officer when an
investigation is closed for the day- to note the time and place at
which it closed and also lays down that throughout the investi·
gation the diary must be sent daily to the Superintendent of
Police on all days on which any proceedings are takep.
The question that bad to be decided by the court was as to
whether the appellants took part in the dacoity and the case of the
prosecution depended mainly on the identification of the appellants.
It was found that the investigating officer did not send the case
diary daily to the Superintendent of Police but only all together at
the end of the period of investigation. It was contended for the ap·
pellants that the case diary could not be relied upon ae it enabled
the officer to make alteration• during the course of the period of
investigation and that as there had been an infraction of r. 109 of
(1) [1950) S.0 R. 886; [1950] I.T.R. 472.
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
735
the UUar Pradesh Police Regulations which had resulted in pre-
judice, the whole trial was vitiated thereby.
Held: (1) Rule 109 of the mtar Pradesh Police Regulations has
no statutory foundation but is only an injunction by the executive
Government to the police officers as to how they must regulate their
work and conduct themselves during the course of investigation and
a failure to comply with the rule relating to the submis~ion of the
police diary cannot vitiate the trial.
Hafiz Mohammad Sani and others v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1931
Patna 150), approved.
Observations in Tilkeshwar Singh and others v. Tht State of
Bihar ([1955) 2 S.C.R. 1043), followed.
(2) It could not be said in the absence of compelling reasons
that because the investigating officer did not send the case diary to
the superior officers every day the same is unworthy of credit parti-
cularly in view of the fact that the courts below have cast no doubt
upon its genuin~ness.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeals Nos. 60 and 61 of 1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated August 4, 1955, of the Allahabad High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 1955 and Ref-
erred No. 31 of 1955 with connected Criminal Appeals
Nos. 299 and 307 of 1955 arising out of the judgment
and order dated February 28, 1955, of the Court of
Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Sessions Trial No.
142of1954.
Jai Gopal Sethi, S. 0. Saran and G. 0. Mathur,
for appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1956.
J. N. Bannerji and P. 0. Agarwala, for the appel-
lant in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1956.
H.J. Umrigar and 0. P. Lal, for the respondents
in both Appeals.
1956. October 3. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
GovINDA MENON J.-On September 6, 1955, this
court granted the appellants herein, special leave to
appeal under art. 136( I) of the Constitution from the
judgment and order dated August 4, 1955, of the
1956
N ira11jan Sit1gh
".
Tiie State of
Uttar Pradesh
1956
Niranjan SittgTi
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
Govinda Menon J.
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956)
Allahabad High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 298 of
1955 (Reference No. 31 of 1955) connected with
Criminal Appeals Nos. 299 anExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.