LexSTATE OF GOA versus JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ ROBERT VALES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 163
STATE OF GOA
v.
JOSE MARIA ALBERT VALES @ ROBERT VALES
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1427-1428 of2017)
AUGUST 18, 2017
[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
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
A
B
c
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
F
the complaint ought to have been construed to be a case otherwise
than on polite report to which warrant procedure was applicable,
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.
E
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".
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.
H
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XXVI - s.340 -
Complaint under - Two essentiaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.