Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.19 seconds)Section 167 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 209 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs R.S. Pai And Another on 3 April, 2002
16. The observation made at para 76 of the constitution Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of K. Veeraswamy (supra) that the report is complete
if it is accompanied by all documents and statement of witnesses as
required under Section 173 (5) of Cr.P.C. cannot be construed as the
statement of law, since it was not made in the context of the police
report under Section 2 (r) read with Section 173 (2) (5) and (8) of
Cr.P.C. On the contrary, the three Judge Bench of this Court in the
decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai's case (supra),
after referring to the earlier judgment of the coordinate Bench in Narayan
Rao's case (supra) categorically held that the word "shall" used in sub-
Section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but directory. The said
statement of law is made after considering the provisions of Section 2(r)
read with Section 173 (5) and (8) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, filing of police
report containing the particulars as mentioned under Section 173 (2)
amounted to completion of filing of the report before the learned ACJM,
cognizance is taken and registered the same. The contention of the
appellant that the police report filed in this case is not as per the legal
requirement under Section 173 (2) & (5) of Cr.P.C. which entitled him for
default bail is rightly rejected by the High Court and does not call for
any interference by this Court.