IMPORTANCE OF POLICE REPORT IN PETITION UNDER SECTION 22-A, 22-B - TopicsExpress



          

IMPORTANCE OF POLICE REPORT IN PETITION UNDER SECTION 22-A, 22-B CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: 1. Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---Calling of police report before issuing directions for registration of F.I.R.---Scope---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was not bound to seek report from the police at every cost and he was fully competent to decide the application and pass an order, even without any report by the police---However when a report was called, to know the truth and real facts, then the same should not be ignored---Where Ex-Officio Justice of Peace did not agree with the police report, then he should give reasons for doing so---Seeking and obtaining a police report but subsequently ignoring the same and passing an order, contrary to it, without assigning any reason could not be appreciated---Special care was required in such a situation. [2014 PCrLJ 1146] 2. S. 376---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 561-A---Rape---F.I.R., non-registering of---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---Reliance upon report of police---Scope---Petitioner alleged to have been raped by proposed accused but ex-Officio Justice of Peace relying upon report of police declined to issue direction for registration of case---Validity---Under the scheme of criminal administration of justice, Justice of Peace was not bound to depend upon and confine his authority to the extent of report furnished by concerned police---Prime duty of Justice of Peace was to apply his judicial mind to examine all relevant facts and prevailing circumstances narrated in complaint by aggrieved person independently and judiciously---Justice of Peace was not to be convinced by report submitted by police---Legal assignment for Justice of Peace was to focus upon prime question of controversy that whether or not any cognizable offence, prima facie, was made out from contents of complaint---Justice of Peace had committed serious error while passing order which was set aside---Application was allowed accordingly. [2014 PCrLJ 460] MY QUESTION: How you see both these judgments are not they contradict each other? What is your feed back?
Posted on: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:29:38 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015