SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.I. AND ORS. versus TAPAN KR. SINGH

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 10-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.I. AND ORS. 
V. 
TAPAN KR. SINGH 
APRIL IO, 2003 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section I 54-First lriformation Report: 
Necessary Contents-Held: ls to provide basis for police officer to suspect 
commission of cognizable offence and not to give full details regarding the 
matter. 
A 
B 
c 
Non mentioning of correct section-Conclusiveness of-Held: ls not 
conclusive since Court has to frame appropriate charges having regard to the D 
material on record 
Sections 154 and 156-Recording of iriformation in General Diary 
Entry-To the effect that person accepting a sum by wey of illegal gratification 
and carrying amount with him on journey by train-Whether disclosure of E 
commission of cognizable offence-Held: Offence of criminal mis-conduct 
under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act made out which is a 
cognizable offence and police officer empowered to investigate-lriformation 
recorded in General Diary Entry can be treated as FIR-Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13. 
Section 165-Search and Seizure by Police Officer-On basis of General 
Diary Entry-Non fi1/jil/ment of mandatory requirement-legality of search 
and seizure-Held: ls pre-mature to consider at this stage. 
Appellant-Superintendent of police, CBI received information and 
F 
a General Diary Entry was recorded to the effect that respondent has been G 
a corrupt official and has been in the habit of demanding and accepting 
illegal gratifications and that he demanded and accepted huge cash which 
he was carrying with him while on journey by train. Police party 
intercepted the respondent at the railway station and conducted search 
of his person, his belongings as also his residential flat. They recovered a H 
485 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A huge amount of money and seized the said amount with other articles. 
Superintendent of police, CBI then lodged an FIR under Section 13(2) read 
with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a case 
was registered. Respondent filed a revision petition. High Court quashed 
the investigation, the G. D. Entry and FIR holding that as the G. D. Entry 
B did not disclose the commission of cognizable offence, police had no 
authority to investigate, thus the investigation, search ~nd seizure made 
were illegal. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that the information recorded in the G. D. 
Entry does disclose the commission of a cognizable offence; that even if 
C the submission that after recording the G. D. Entry only a preliminary 
enquiry was made is not accepted, they are still entitled to sustain the 
legality of the investigation on the basis that the G. D. Entry may be treated 
as a FIR since it disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: I. High Court erred in exercising its revisional jurisdiction 
to quash G.D. Entry, F.I.R. and the investigation undertaken by the police 
officer and also in granting relief to the respondent by directing the return 
of the seized amount and articles. Order of High Court is set aside and 
the appellants are directed to proceed with the investigation in accordance 
E with law. [496-G, HI 
F 
2. It is well settled that FIR is not an encyclopaedia, which must 
disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant 
may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though be may 
not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know 
how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be 
an eye witness so as to be able to disclose in great details all aspects of the 
offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given 
must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information 
so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the 
G commission of a cognizable offence, which the concerned police officer is 
empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. At this stage this 
is enough for a police officer and not that he must be convinced or satisfied 
that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect 
on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have 
been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an 
H investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself 
-
-
SUPERINTENDENT OF POL

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