Criminal Procedure Notes

s. 144 has an anticipatory role, where the authorities feel the need for the authorities, they can for
reasons of apprehended danger use s.144. it is a power under preventive jurisdiction, where there is
an apprehended danger, or possibility of any nuisance disturbing public tranquillity, etc etc. the
power to determine this urgency is there in the district magistrate. Minimum for 2 months and max
till 8 mnths. Its an executive order. The reasonability of this power as required by article 14 or 21 is
justified by the apprehension of danger.

BBN School v. DM, Allahabad- It was held that public tranquillity is used in the maximum possibility
of its wideness as in preventive detention law. It is wider than the personal liberty under art. 19.

Unmul Khan v. Executive Magistrate, UT- EM has wide powers to determine situations which will
harm public tranquillity and the humans.

The satisfaction of EM is to be determined in a summary manner and reasons may not be recorded.

Prabhas Kumar Roy v. OIC, Raninagar P.S.- An order to prohibit the procession of goddess Durga
before mosque was held not violative under art. 25 and 26.

Ravi Raman Prasad v. State of Bihar- a person was given possession of a house in a civil dispute. The
Magistrate actually gave s. 144 order to give possession to that person. This was altered by the hc
which appointed a receiver for the property but the sc overruled it and said that it was correct on
the part of DM as he had restored the status quo and maintained the tranquillity in the area.

Even playing of high volume music can lead to an order under s. 144.

Anuradhha Basin v. Union of India- Crush the govt. order for internet shutdown was the request. It
was completely an opaque function on the part of the government as it did not even publish the
notification. The bench has held that orders laid down not in accordance with law should be revoked
and the law should be followed when such orders are laid down. They did not give any immediate
relief to the petitioners. The power is exercisable only when there is a present danger and its
relation with the emergency. Govt. has also asked for framing a review committee to review such
orders.

For IT Act, computer emergency response team has the responsibility to recommend the shutdown
of internet.

Injury to life- the reason for s. 144 cannot be solely to protect property but there should be an
injury to human life should be involved.

Harm to public tranquillity-

Public Nuisance

The section should not be held to be in advantage of any person or any side

Madhu Likye v. Svm Monghyr- the s. 144 was held constitutional. The proprietory of order is subject
to change and the or

der is not final. Just because there is a chance of abuse, it does not mean that the section should be
struck down. The order must state the material facts of the case. It must any person from doing an
act or make him take an order for a property.
Sheikh Piru Baksh v. Kalandi Pati; Manzur Hasan v. Mohd. Zaman- SC has laid down certain principles
for the application of s. 144.

Objectives:

To prevent any breach of peace

It is to prevent danger of human life, health and safety

To prevent public tranquillity, annoyance or affray or riot.

M. DAS v. AR DAS- SDM has an authority concurrent to that of EM.

The order must be in writing and not oral, the order should justify the reason (hence subject to
challenge), it should be specific and definite in terms, there cannot be any vague terms, the order
should have specific acts and the persons. The material facts should be stated in the order)

Satyanarayan case-

Abu Sheikh Hasan v. Calcutta- we should look for specific persons for the order s. 144.

Reference and Revision

It is a part of the supervisory jurisdiction. In cases where the appeal is not available, revision is the
option. It is the opportunity given to every victim who feels aggrieved in situations which are non-
appealable in nature. Revision and appeal cannot go hand in hand. Power of revision is an element
of the trial. S. 395-405 cover reference and revision.

Review provision is not available for a criminal procedure. Revision is not a right for the aggrieved
person but a discretion of high court- s. 398. High court can order an inquiry therein. Revision lies to
a higher court, either Session Court or High Court.

Pranab Kumar v. west Bengal- revision powers are not conferred rights on the litigants. It is for the
purpose of check so that justice is served according to law and so that the lower courts do not abuse
their power or exceed their jurisdiction. Grounds: 1. Whether correctness of lower court? 2.
Irregularity of proceedings 3. Whether the orders are final or interlocutory 4. Arguments of the
aggrieved person as to why a revision is necessary.

Interlocutory orders are not open for revision but can be appealable.

s. 397 is with regard to records which are present in lower courts which have not heard the case.

Amit Kapur v. Ramesh Chander- s. 397 can be used to judge the correctness and proprietary of the
trial. The records can be asked to prevent the abuse of process or error made by lower court. The
jurisdiction of court of revision is very very limited where the procedure or law is not followed or
where the judicial discretion is used arbitrarily.

Azghar Khan and anr. v. State of UP- when the high court and session judge have concurrent powers
under s. 397(3), then the sessions court being an appellate court, the high court only function as the
court of revision only for this case, high court has the power to call back the records.

s. 398 – The session court or high court can hold an examination or inquiry. Direction can be given
to subordinate courts in cases where the cases have been filed under s. 203/204 (case without a
police report).
s. 399- session court can exercise the powers of high court under s. 401. The decision is final and
cannot be challenged. It will be binding. S. 401(1) gives session judge the powers of high court. One
can go to any of the two courts for evoking revision.

s. 400- an additional session judge also has powers under s. 399.

s. 401- power of revisions of high court - Powers under s. 386, 389, 390, 391 and 307 (powers of
appellate court and session courts). If there is a split opinion in a division bench, then the provisions
under s. 392. Then the chief justice of high court may setup a higher bench. The person who has
preferred the revision should be heard. An order of acquittal cannot be converted into conviction by
a revisional high court. Courts can convert review provisions into appeal applications.

Court can take suo motto or by reference by a stranger. The stranger or third person can initiate the
proceedings but not file the revision petition, which will be taken up by the court suo motto.

S. 395- reference- When a case is pending and a question with regarding to the invalidity of a
statutory provision

Transfer of Cases

A- S. 406 SC has the power to transfer the cases or appeals from one state to another on instance of
Attorney General of India or any interested party. Jayalalitha’s case was requested to be transferred
to the sc for their political influence in the case. SC can take cognizance in any criminal case going on
in the nation. Eg. Best Bakery case, Jayalalitha case. The high court cannot transfer cases suo motto
but only based on requests which is being made.

B- S. 407- HC power to transfer any appeal or inquiry or trial of a case from one court to another of
equal or superior jurisdiction including HC itself. Superior court includes those special courts or
tribunals

C- S. 408 and 409- Power of session court to transfer cases or appeals from one criminal court to his
session division. Session court can recall any case or appeal made over by him to additional session
judge, assist. Session judge or CJM. One can request for retrial on transfer of cases and the
proceedings which will follow depend upon the request made.

D- S. 410- I. CJM to withdraw or recall a case from any Magistrate subordinate.

II. Any judicial magistrate to recall any case made over by him to any Magistrate under section
192(2).

E- S. 411- Power of District Mag. Or SDM to transfer or withdraw any case from a magistrate
subordinate to him and either try that case himself or refer it to any other magistrate.

Reasons for the transfer is very important, whether to delay the proceedings or for maintaining the
fair trial. Mahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India- CBI became the interested party for requesting
transfer of cases. The case revealed the conspiracy of public servant of district courts and judges
withdrawing from the district treasury. It was not a reasonable apprehension that the trial was
biased only because judicial officers were involved.

Batku Singh v. Kalu Prasad 1900 28 – Transfer was for the reason of failure of justice

Baljeet Singh v. State of J&K AIR 1982 SC 1518- Transfer of cases can be done only when there is a
request for fair trial. The court ought not to refuse a transfer of case only because the case has
reached an advanced stage or because the transfer may entail expenses- C. Narayana Reddy v. State
of Andhra Pradesh.

Gulshan Malik v. U.P.- The advocate’s daughter was victim under s. 498A. The advocates made it
hard for the trial to continue as the advocates had gathered and asked for a punishment, hence
transfer was requested.

Dhyan Investment and Trading Company Ltd. V. CBI- who is superior to high court and who is
subordinate was discussed.

S. 482 CRPC

State of AP v. Venkatanna- Court under s, 482 is not a court of revision or appeal.

HC quashed prosecution saying that an alternate remedy was available other than s. 409 hence the
HC said that the director of the company should be left scot free- but SC quashed the proceedings
and said that the HC should not take the appearance of a trial court.

S.R. Pattanaik v. state of Orissa- HC asked the magistrate to try a matter under civil procedure and
not criminal procedure. Matter was in relation to payment of wages.

HN Singh v. TB Singh- Case of property attachment which had both civil and criminal characteristics.

Maharashtra v. Yusuf- HC held that it can quash the proceeding filed by a third party in the greater
public interest. Third party intervention is not permitted, only concerned party can file a s. 482
application.

HC cannot quash police investigation or interfere the statutory rights of the police who is making an
investigation due to FIR– Kernel Singh, Nirodia Chandra, Hazalilal v. Rameshwar Prasad

R.P. Kapur v. Punjab- when any legal bar is there against the continuation of proceedings, or the
allegations in FIR are not proving the alleged offence or where the allegation has no legal or
evidential support, the high court can use its inherent powers but not in case where the executive
magistrate has made an order.

Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali- discretionary used of powers. Abhorrent offences, FIR can’t be
arbitrarily quashed.

u.p. v. mohd. Naim- if alternate remedy is available, s. 482 can’t be imposed or revision.

– S. 482 can’t be invoked in such a grave suicide case with criminal instigation being present. The
high court did not take cognizance of the evidences properly and overturned the case.

Parbat Bhai Ahim v. state of Gujarat

Bihar v. KJD Singh- criminal proceeding cannot be quashed even before commencement. S. 482
cannot be used to cut short the process.

If compounding is permitted, then s. 482 crpc cannot be used by the high court. Quashing

by unanimous decision, if the CEC differs in any opinion then majority shall prevail.