On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 170 of CrPC that provides for forwarding an accused to the Magistrate at the time of filing of chargesheet.
On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 170 of CrPC that provides for forwarding an accused to the Magistrate at the time of filing of chargesheet.
To know more about it, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/08/supreme-court-section-170-crpc-code-chargesheet-criminal-arrest-custody.html
Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoon
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2w
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1
Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARAD
Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon
Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook.
Credits:
Music by Wataboi from Pixabay
Thank you for listening!
Hi everyone.
Welcome to Legal Talks by Desi Kanoon.
I am Suyash and I am excited to have started this show.
On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 170 of CrPC that provides for forwarding an accused to the Magistrate at the time of filing of chargesheet.
In this case, the Appellant was roped in by the Police for certain offences. The investigation by the Police was completed and the Trial Court took the view that “unless the person is taken into custody the chargesheet will not be taken on record in view of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.” In order to understand this conundrum, let us peruse Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is sufficient. - (1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.”
Basically, Section 170 of CrPC provides that when a Chargesheet is presented before a Magistrate, the Police shall forward the accused under custody to such Magistrate. The whole controversy in the present case involves the meaning of “custody”. According to the Trial Court, the accused must be taken into custody by the Police before filing the Chargesheet. This view was challenged by the Appellant in the present case, and it was contended that Section 170 merely connotes presentation of the accused by the Police before the Court at the time of filing of chargesheet if the Police thinks there is a chance of absconding of the accused. Let us understand the pertinent observations by the Supreme Court in this regard.
Firstly, the Court observed that Section 170 of CrPC “does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet.” According to the Court, “the word “custody” appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody, but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the chargesheet.”
Secondly, the Court noted that personal liberty is an aspect that has been enshrined in our Constitution and cogent reasons must exist to take a person into custody. Simply because there exists provisions for arresting a person does not mean that arrest ought to make in all the circumstances. According to the Court, “a distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person.”
And lastly, the Court observed that insistence of the Trial Courts to arrest an accused under Section 170 of CRPC as a pre-requisite formality to take the chargesheet on record is completely misplaced and contrary to the intent of Section 170 of CrPC. This is especially applicable in cases where the accused is cooperating in the investigation.
Those were the observations by the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks?
Our Code of Criminal Procedure is quite simplified and beautifully enunciates the role of the Police and the Criminal Courts. However, provisions of CrPC cannot be read in isolation and the basic requirement that personal liberty of a person is to be respected as long as such person is cooperating with the investigating agencies cannot be overlooked. Section 170 of CrPC must be interpreted in such light and a mechanical approach to treat the accused persons as chattels who could be arrested in a casual and a routine manner must be deprecated, as has been rightly done so by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present case.
Hence, I hope you enjoyed listening to the show.
Thank you for listening.
Please do not forget to like and subscribe us.
And if you have any comments, please make them in the comments section.
See you next time, till then stay tuned.