STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE versus H. SRINIVAS

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 18-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
547
STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
v.
H. SRINIVAS
(Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 2018)
MAY 18, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA  AND  S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Investigation:
General Diary Entry – Concerning preliminary enquiry –
Failure – Effect of – Held: Failure to make entry in General Diary
Concerning preliminary enquiry would not be per se illegal – There
is difference between irregularity and illegality – Obligation of
maintenance is part of course of conduct of the concerned officer,
which may not itself have any bearing on the criminal trial unless
some grave prejudice going to the root of the matter is shown to
exist, at the time of trial – CrPC also does not bar any investigation
where General Diary entry is not made – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – Police Act, 1861 – s. 44.
Jurisdiction:
Writ jurisdiction and inherent jurisdiction – Scope of – Held:
High Court is ill-equipped to answer questions of facts in exercise
of its writ or inherent jurisdictions – The court cannot convert a
mixed question of law and fact concerning the merits of the case,
into a pure question of law – High Court
Judgments/Orders:
Reading of judgment – Held: Judgments are not legislations
– They have to be read in the context and background discussions.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The concept of maintaining General Diary has
its origin under Section 44 of Police Act of 1861 as applicable to
States, which makes it an obligation for the concerned Police
Officer to maintain a General Diary, but such non-maintenance
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 547
  547
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
per se may not be rendering the whole prosecution illegal. There
is also no bar under any provision of CrPC barring investigating
authority to investigate into matter, which may for some justifiable
ground, not found to have been entered in the General Diary
right after receiving the Confidential Information. However, on
the other hand, such non-maintenance of General Diary may have
consequences on the merits of the case, which is a matter of
trial. Moreover, the explanation of the genesis of a criminal case,
in some cases, plays an important role in establishing the
prosecution’s case. The binding conclusions reached in the Lalitha
Kumari case is an obligation of best efforts for the concerned officer
to record all events concerning an enquiry. If the Officer has not
recorded, then it is for the trial court to weigh the effect of the
same for reasons provided therein. A court under a writ
jurisdiction or under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
is ill equipped to answer such questions of facts. The treatment
provided by the High Court in converting a mixed question of
law and fact concerning the merits of the case, into a pure question
of law may not be proper in light of settled jurisprudence.  Nothing
in Lalitha Kumari case justifies the conclusion reached by the
High Court. Judgments are not legislations, they have to be read
in the context and background discussions. [Paras 17, 18][557-
G-H; 558-A-D]
2. CrPC itself has differentiated between irregularity and
illegality. The obligation of maintenance of General Diary is part
of course of conduct of the concerned officer, which may not
itself have any bearing on the criminal trial unless some grave
prejudice going to the root of matter is shown to exist at the time
of the trial. Conspicuous absence of any provision under CrPC
concerning the omissions and errors during investigation also
bolsters the conclusion reached herein. [Para 19][558-E-F]
3. Moreover, the requirement of the preliminary enquiry
is well established by judicial precedents as a check on
mushrooming false prosecution against public servants by
persons who misuse the process of law for their personal
vengeance. Such preliminary check would be beneficial and has
been continuously approved by catena of judgments of this Court.
[Para 20] [558-F-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
549
Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC
1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713 ;  Smt. Kesar Devi v. Union of
India & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 427 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR
1; Union of India and Ors. v. T. Nathamuni (2014) 16
SCC 285 : [2014] 12 SCR 297 ; Niranjan Singh and
Ors. v. State of  Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 142 : [1956]
SCR 734 – relied on.
P. Slirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595 :
[1970] 3 SCR 931 –  referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 14 SCR 713
    relied on
Para 17
[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 1     relied on
Para 17
[2014] 12 SCR 297
    

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.