Khushi Gupta
Published on: April 10, 2022 at 20:23 IST
The Karnataka High Court held that it is not necessary for a First Information Report to be Registered immediately after receiving Information about a Cognizable Offense, for the Investigation to be valid.
Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar, therefore, upheld the Conviction of a person Allegedly for the purpose of Human Trafficking.
He was Arrested after the Police had received information that some persons were involved in the creation of Forged and Fabricated Passports for the purpose of Human Trafficking.
The Accused Petitioner was Convicted and Sentenced under Sections 419,420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967.
The Petitioner approached the Court arguing that the Prosecution had failed to prove the Case, and other contentions, including:
- That the First Information Report was not registered soon after receiving information about the Commission of Cognizable Offenses and therefore the entire Investigation is vitiated.
The Court did not accept this Contention and Noted that whenever information discloses the commission of a Cognizable Offense, it is Mandatory to Register a First Information Report. It means that when the information is given to a Police Officer, the Offense should already have been committed.
“Mere Securing of Panchas before going to spot does not lead to an inference that the information was definite,” the Court said.
- The Officer who Lodged the First Information Report himself conducted a major part of the Investigation and therefore the entire Investigation is vitiated.
“If the investigation is Free of Bias and Prejudice, there is nothing wrong in the same Officer continuing the Investigation after lodging First Information Report,” the Court said.
- As the entire Investigation was done without following the Procedure established by Law, the Conviction of the Petitioner is against Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“There is a lot of difference in no Procedure being followed and infractions in the Procedure. While following Procedure, if a mistake occurs or if there is an infraction, it cannot be said that Personal Liberty is affected unless the person complaining of Violation of Article 21 demonstrates how his Liberty is affected substantially or his interest is Prejudiced affecting Liberty.” The Court said.
It is natural for an Accused with a Seasoned Lawyer to find faults in an Investigation, but Courts must be circumspect when such Issues are raised, the Court said while Dismissing the Petition.
