For research issues 1, 2 and 4-

Issue 1- 173(6), CrPC

State vs. Sudesh Kumar @ Suresh Chand

 The scheme of Section 173 of the Code even deals with the scheme of exclusion of
documents or statements submitted to the Court. In this regard, one can make a
reference to the provisions of Section 173(6) of the Code, which empowers the
investigating agency to make a request to the Court to exclude that part of the
statement or record and from providing the copies thereof to the accused, which are
not essential in the interest of justice, and where it will be inexpedient in the public
interest to furnish such statement.
 The framers of the law, in their wisdom, have specifically provided a limited mode of
exclusion, the criteria being no injustice to be caused to the accused and greater
public interest being served.

Vinay Tyagi v/s. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762; Chandra Babu @ Moses vs. State through
Inspector of Police and others (2015) 3 MLJ (Crl.) 579 (SC)

 A Magistrate has the power to direct 'further investigation' after filing of a police
report in terms of Section 173(6) of the Code.

Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation 148 (2008) DLT 289 (in Delhi high court);
Affirmed by Ujjal Dasgupta vs State

  The distinction between the two types of material, i.e. statements of witnesses
recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC (Examination of witness by police)
and the documents gathered during investigation, which are forwarded to the trial
court by the police along with the charge sheet, requires to be noticed.  Section 173
CrPC(Report of police on completion of investigation) and 207 CrPC (Supply to the
accused of copy of police report and other documents) are relevant in this context.
 The scheme of the above two Sections indicates that the Legislature has intended to
differentiate between documents forwarded to a court by the police along with the
charge sheet or sent to it earlier during the course of investigation on the one hand
 and the statements of prospective witnesses recorded by the police during
investigation under Section 161 CrPC, copies of which are also forwarded to the
Court along with the charge sheet, on the other. This is plain from the language
of Section 173(5)(a) when compared with that of Section 173(5)(b) read with Section
173(6) and the first and second provisos to Section 207(v) CrPC. For instance, the
reference in Section 173(6) to "any such statement" is to the statement of witnesses
referred to in Section 173(5)(b) CrPC, i.e. statements recorded of prospective
witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. In relation to these statements the police office
has a discretion under Section 173(6) CrPC to withhold a part thereof if he forms an
opinion that it is inexpedient in public interest to do so and inform the Magistrate
accordingly.
 This is in contrast to the position regarding documents. Section 173(5)(a) CrPC refers
to documents "on which the prosecution proposes to rely" other than "those already
sent to the Magistrate during the investigation". These documents are to be
forwarded to the Magistrate along with report. Therefore at the stage when the
supply of documents has to be made in terms of Section 207(v) CrPC what the
Magistrate has with him are those documents which have already been sent to the
Magistrate during the course of investigation and those documents that are
forwarded by the police officer along with the charge sheet. Under Section 207(v),
the Magistrate has no discretion in the matter of not supplying such documents.
 Therefore, the words "such statement" occurring in Section 173(6) CrPC are not
given a wide interpretation and thus does not include documents forwarded by the
prosecution along with the chargesheet to the learned trial court as mentioned
in Section 173(5)(a) CrPC.

Issue 2- 228A, IPC

 Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, (i.e. IPC), which was first introduced in 1983
and subsequent amended in 2013, prohibits the publication of the identity of rape
victims (specifically, persons against whom offences under Sections 376, 376A, 376B,
376C, 376D and 376E, IPC, are alleged or found to have been committed). The
 prohibition under this Section has been worded to prohibit the publication of not
only victims’ names but also any matter which could make victims’ identities known.
Those who violate the publication prohibition under s. 228A, IPC, are liable to be
punished with either simple or rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and are be
liable to be fined.

National Federation of Indian Women vs Government of Tamil Nadu, 2007 CrLJ 3385

 Section 228A was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 1983 to prevent social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual
offence.

The proposed idea behind this was to save the victim from the post offence atrocities of
society which came in the form of ridicule and deterioration of marriage prospects. Rape
and sexual assault victims were commonly targeted as one who was abetting the crime.
Surrendering to the social stigma of victimization after crime, the legislature came up with
S.228A prohibiting anyone from making identity of victim of such offence known.

 Section S. 228A(1) says that the section applies when offence under section 376,
section 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D is alleged or found to have
been committed.
Currently S.228A(2) provides exceptions to non-disclosure requirements under the
law: These are:
a. by or under the order in writing of the officer-in-charge of the police station
or the police officer making the investigation into such offence acting in good
faith for the purposes of such investigation; or
b. by, or with the authorization in writing of, the victim; or
c. where the victim is dead or minor or of unsound mind, by, or with the
authorization in writing of, the next of kin of the victim:
Provided, that no such authorization shall be given by the next of kin to anybody
other than the chairman or the secretary, by whatever name called, of any
recognized welfare institution or organization.
  According to the third sub-section which prescribes the punishment under this
section, whoever prints or publishes any matter relating to any court proceeding
with respect to what has been stated in the first sub-section without obtaining prior
permission of the concerned court shall be punished with simple or rigorous
imprisonment for a term extending up to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
 According to the proviso of S.228A(3) the provisions of S.228A of the Indian Penal
Code are not applicable on Judicial Servants who are acting in a bona fide manner
while pronouncing the judgments.

But, in State of Karnataka v. Puttr aja (2004) 1 SCC 475:  Оm Prakash v. State of UP
2006 CrLJ 2913 (SC) the courts have observed-

 that the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a
sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate
that in the judgments, be it of the Supreme Court, High Court or lower Court, the
name of the victim should not be indicated we have chosen to describe her as
'victim' in the judgment.

 The court emphasized on the rule of caution and not disclosing the identity of
victim in judgments.

Going by the Section it is ample clear that the legislature was suspicious about the
involvement of private parties not being a welfare institution trying to profit out of the
tragic story of the victim. Hence this section was cautiously closed with the proviso clause
expressly granting such exception to welfare institutions.

R. Lakshmipathi And Anr. vs S. Ramalingam 1998 CriLJ 3683-

 the court held that section 228-A does not provide for eligibility of a person who
could file a complaint and hence any one can file the complaint in public interest.

Issue 4- Section 102 CrPC

R.K. Dolansana Singh v. R.K. Narjitsana Singh, AIR 1971 Manipur 39.

 Section 102 will come into play only when a police officer seizes any property which
may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under
 circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Where,
therefore, neither the property seized is alleged or suspected to have been stolen
nor the court is satisfied that it has been found under circumstances which create
suspicion of the commission of the offence, the police cannot seize the property on
the strength of this section.

Babulal, AIR 1954 Ori 225

The words “Any Offence” includes Non-Cognizable offences.

Bombay Science and Research Education Institute v. State of Maharashtra, 2008(5) AIR
Bom R 523.

 ‘Any property’ mentioned in the section whether moveable or immoveable can be

seized by the police under Section 102, CrPC.

Rameshwar Das v State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SCC 890

 Letters can be seized under the power of section 102, CrPC but they have to
mentioned in the seizure list.

State of Maharashtra v Topas D. Neogy, (1999)SCC685(SC)

 Even properties which are intangible in nature and cannot be taken physical
possession of have, in exceptional cases, been allowed to be seized by the operation
of Section 102, CrPC. Thus, a police officer can issue a prohibitory order freezing a
bank account, if such assets have direct links with the offence.

Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I, (2008)3SCC674

 Even a Passport can be seized under the provisions of Section 102, CrPC. Though it
cannot be impounded.

A memory card, ipso facto, would come under the ‘any property’ being a moveable
property. This is substantiated by the definition of moveable property under the General
Clauses Act, 1879 which is very general and wide in nature and states that a moveable
property is anything which is not immoveable property. Thus, it can be seized by the police
in accordance with the provisions of Section 102 of CrPC.