STATE OF M.P. versus DEVENDRA

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 98 
.. 
A 
A 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
DEVENDRA 
(Criminal Appeal No . 979 of 2002) 
B 
MAY 05, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR. 
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) 
Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 - Identification of 
c prisoners and methods for investigation - Directions by High 
Court to State Government in regard thereto to avoid 
impersonation - On appeal held: Directions by High Court 
modified - Directions subject to provisions of the Act, the 
Regulation and the Code - In case of conflict statute would 
D prevail - M.P. Police Regulations -
Code of Criminal 
-· 
Procedure, 1973. 
In this appeal, directions issued by High Court to the 
State Government as regards identification of prisoners 
E and methodology for investigation, is under challenge. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Direction 1 that the State shall make 
suitable amendments in .the Police Regulations about 
F taking and filing photographs of the complainant, 
material witnesses and accused persons alongwith the 
charge sheet in all criminal cases, sessions trials, except 
in minor/petty offences and non-cognizable offence; and 
Direction 3 that in all criminal cases and sessions trials, 
G except in non-cognizable and minor/petty offences, at the 
time of filing of the challan/charge sheet the State should 
also file the photographs of complainant, material 
witnesses and all the accused persons and the same 
should be part of the papers of the trial and the State may 
H 
98 
STATE OF M.P. v. DEVENDRA 
99 
j 
also retain copy of photographs with the case diary or A 
at the police station for the purposes of service of 
summons and warrants for arresting the absconding 
accused persons, are overlapping to certain extent. So 
far as the accused is concerned the Prisoners Act apply 
at both pre trial and post trial stages. So far as the 
B 
complainant and the witnesses are concerned their role 
is during the trial. [Para 3 and 10] [101-B-C-E-G; 107-F-G] 
1.2. The directions given by the High Court are 
modified. As regards para 8 of the directions the c 
identification has to be based on the basis of information 
relating to identification of somebody. So far as the 
direction no. 9 that in all appeals ~gainst acquittal the 
photographs should also form part of record of the trial 
court and whenever notices and warrants are issued by 
D 
.. 
the appellate court or High Courts the photographs and 
marks· of identification should be cross checked by the 
office with the accused and when the notices are 
returned duly served and warrants executed, they should 
accompany a certificate by the officer that the accused 
has been duly served after verifying the identity, name 
E 
and address with the photograph, is concerned only 
when it is so necessary by the Magistrate action shall be 
taken. The directions are subject to provisions of the Act, 
" 
the Regulation and the Code. In case of conflict statute 
itself prevails. In case of complainant as well as 
F 
witnesses, where prosecution wants to protect the 
identity, the reasons, therefore, must be recorded. In case 
of rape victims, photographs should not be taken. [Para 
11] [107-G-H; 108-A-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
G 
I 
No. 979 of 2002. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.02.2002 of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore, Madhya 
H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
-. 
Pradesh in Misc. Crl. Case No: 2932 of 2001. 
.._ 
A 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellant. 
Ex-Parte for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of Madhya 
Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, which gave certain 
c directions to the State Government in the matter of identification 
of prisoners and methodology for investigation. The respondent 
No.1 had filed an application for grant of bail in terms of Section 
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 
'Code'). During hearing of the petition the respondent No.1 who 
D 
was the applicant before the High Court stated that the petition 
has become infructuous. Therefore, he did not want to press 
the same. The High Court held that even though the petition had 
become infructuous certain directions were necessary to be 
given to the concerned authorities. 
E 
2. The stand before the High Court by the appellant-State 
was that there were not many cases wher~ i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.