SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED

UNIVERSITY)
(Established under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4) Awarded Category – I by
UGC

Program: BA LLB
Batch: 2019-24
Semester: IV
Course Name: LAW OF CRIMES PAPER II: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE I
Seat No: 192065
PRN: 19010323076

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Mention your details only in the space provided above. If any other details
name, contact detail etc. are written anywhere else in the answer script it
will be treated as adoption of unfair means.
2. Use diagrams and sketches wherever required.
3. Submission will be done by the Google form provided by the examination
department and it will be in the word format only(.doc/.docx). Submission
of any other format will not be accepted.
4. Submission will not be accepted beyond the deadline given by the
examination department in each subject. Student will be marked absent in
case of late submission.
5. The answers need to be neatly typed. Formatting guidelines: Font size &
name: 12 & Times New Roman; Line spacing 1.5; Justified; Page size: A4;
No borders
6. Write your answer in your own words and do not copy paste from any
source. Read the question carefully and write your answer fulfilling the
requirements of the question.
7. Examiner may use plagiarism check software to find out the originality of
the assessment.
8. If the students copy from each other’s assignment, it will be considered as
unfair means case and performance will be treated as null and void for the
entire examination.
9. File name should be Seat Number Example: 345006
Q1. Explain the hierarchy of Criminal Courts under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Also enumerate the powers of the Criminal Courts.
Ans: Indian judiciary derives its powers from the Constitution of India. The existence of Courts is
required to check the misuse of the powers conferred by the Legislature or the Executive. The
Indian Judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution of India, along with being a custodian of the
Fundamental Rights of the citizens. The judiciary is an independent from the State’s control and is
separate from the Executive and Legislative bodies of Indian government. The Judicial system of
India is stratified into various levels.

Hierarchy of Criminal Courts

The hierarchy of courts having jurisdiction to try criminal cases in India is as follows (from higher
to lower order):

1. Supreme Court
2. High Court
3. Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge
4. Assistant Sessions Judge
5. Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
6. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class/Metropolitan Magistrate
7. Judicial Magistrate of Second Class

i. Supreme Court

The Constitution of India provides provision for creation of Supreme Court of India. It also
provides their power in respect of criminal matters.

1.1 Powers of Supreme Court

 Article 131 of the Constitution gives the power of original jurisdiction to the Supreme
Court, to resolve the dispute arising between the Centre and the States or between two
States.
 Interpretation of the Constitution- Only the Apex Court has the power to settle a
question based on any issue related to the Constitution.
 Power Of Judicial Review (Article 137)- All the laws enacted are subjected to scrutiny
by the Judiciary.
 Court of Appeal – The apex court is the highest court for appeal in India. It has the
power to hear appeals from all the cases lying in the various High Courts and
subordinate courts of our country. A certificate of the grant is to be provided according
 to Article 132(2), 133(1) and 134 of the Constitution with respect to any judgment,
decree or final order of all cases of the High Court involving the question of law.
Appeals to the Supreme Court can be made under the following categories:-
 Constitutional Matters
 Civil Matters
 Criminal Matters
 Special Leave Petition

ii. High Courts

The Constitution of India provides provision for creation of the High Court of each state. It also
provides their power in respect of criminal matters.

The Constitution provides that the High court shall have superintendence over all courts and
tribunals throughout the territories in which it exercises the jurisdiction and The CrPC provides
provision for appeal and revision by High court.

(a) Powers of High Courts

 Original Jurisdiction – In some issues, the case can be directly filed in the High Courts.
This is known as the original jurisdiction of the High Court. E.g., In matters related to
fundamental rights, Marriage and Divorce cases.
 Appellate Jurisdiction- The High Court is the Appellate Court for the cases coming up
from the trial court.
 Supervisory Jurisdiction- This refers to the power of general superintendence of the
High Court over the matters of all the subordinate courts.

Sec 6 of CrPCprovides that besides the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any law,
other than this Code, there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts,
namely: —
(i) Courts of Session;
(ii) Judicial Magistrates of the first class and, in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates;
(iii) Judicial Magistrates of the second class; and
(iv) Executive Magistrates.

Sec 7 of CrPC provides that every State shall consist of sessions divisions; and every sessions
division shall, for the purposes of this Code, be a district or consist of districts.It further states that
every metropolitan area shall, for the said purposes, be a separate sessions division and
district.The Law Commission has expressed the need that the Magistrate appointed in the
metropolitan area should be more competent to deal expeditiously with the sophisticated crimes,
particularly in the socio-economic field which are more common in the cities.

The power of the various subordinate courts is mentioned from section 26-35, under the Code of
Criminal Procedure

(iii) Court of Sessions

(a) Sec 9 of CrPC states that the State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every
sessions division.

(b) Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court.

(c) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judge.

Qualification- A minimum of seven years of practice as a lawyer at bar is a necessary qualification

for direct entry level to become a Sessions Judge upon a written examination and oral interview
by a committee of High court judges, the appointment of district judges is notified by the state
Government.
Powers:-
• As per sec 28 (2) of CrPC, a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge may pass any
sentence authorized by law; but any sentence of death passed by any such Judge shall be
subject to confirmation by the High Court.

• Section 366 of CrPCprovides that when a Sessions Court passes a death-sentence, the
proceedings must be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence cannot be executed, unless
it is confirmed by the High Court. In the meanwhile, the Sessions Court must commit the
convicted person to jail custody.

In the case Jumman and Ors.vs The State of Punjab the Supreme Court held that is the duty of the
High Court to consider the proceedings in all their aspects and come to an independent conclusion
on the materials, apart from the view expressed by the Sessions Judge.

(iv) Assistant Sessions Judge

All Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge in whose Court they
exercise jurisdiction.The Sessions Judges may, from time to time, make rules consistent with this
Code, as to the distribution of business among such Assistant Sessions Judges.As per sec 28 (3) of
CrPC, an Assistant Sessions Judge may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding
Ten years.
(v) Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

According to Section 29 (1) of CrPC, the Chief Judicial Magistrate can try cases, which are
punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.The Court of a Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate shall have the powers of the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(vi) Judicial Magistrate of First Class/ Metropolitan Magistrate

According to Section 29 (2) of the CrPC, a Judicial Magistrate of First Class may pass a sentence
of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or of fine not exceeding Ten thousand
rupees or of both.the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, determine the
territorial jurisdiction of courts of JMFC.Metropolitan Magistrate shall have the powers of the
Court of a Magistrate of the first class.

(vii) Judicial Magistrate of Second Class

Second Class Judicial Magistrate Courts are the lowest level of the Criminal Court structure in
India. A Court of Judicial Magistrate of Second Class may be established by the State
Government in consultation with the High Court of the respective state at such places in the
district and in any number by a notification as per Section 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (CrPC). Sec 29 (3) states that this Court is competent to try the cases which are punishable
with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or with fine not exceeding five thousand
rupees, or with both.

Q2.A. Discuss the rights of arrested person as recognised under Indian Constitution and
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the help of relevant case laws.

Ans: The principles of Natural Justice are deeply rooted into the criminal law and the right to have
a free and fair trial is a constitutional mandate. Therefore even an accused person is bestowed with
certain rights to ensure these principles are preserved and to maintain humane standards. The most
basic of these rights are found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC or The Code) and
also in the Indian Constitution which gives it more teeth. An accused person retains these rights
during the course of any investigation, enquiry as well as in trial. For eg: protection against illegal
and arbitrary arrest, against self-incrimination and so on.

(i) Protection against Ex-Post Facto laws:-

Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides fundamental right to protection against ex-post
facto laws. Article 20(1) can be distinguished into 2 parts:
(a) A person should not be convicted of an offence except for violating ‘a law in force’ at the
time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. A person is to be convicted for
violating a law in force when the act charged is committed. A law enacted later, making an
 act done earlier (not an offence when done) as an offence, will not make the person liable
for being convicted under it.
(b) The second part of Art. 20(1) immunizes a person from a penalty greater than what he
might have incurred at the time of his committing the offence. Thus, a person cannot be
made to suffer more by an ex-post-facto law than what he would be subjected to at the time
he committed the offence

It must be noted that Article 20(1) provides protection from sentence and conviction under an ex-
post facto law, but not from trial under ex-post facto law.
In K.Satwat Singh v. State of Punjab, Section 420 of IPS (Cheating and Dishonestly inducing
delivery of property) did not provide for a specific amount of fine to be imposed and thus any
amount of fine could be imposed for an offence under this section. Later on, a minimum amount
of fine was provided for by an ordinance which was to be mandatorily imposed upon person
convicted under this particular section. The accused here was convicted under this section and fine
was imposed upon him as per the ordinance although the crime was committed earlier when no
limit of fine was specified under Section 420 of IPC. The same was challenged on grounds of
violation of Article 20(1), wherein the Supreme Court held that Article 20(1) was not infringed
since the minimum penalty imposed logically cannot not be said to be greater than what could be
inflicted under Section 420 of IPC that was in force at the time the offence committed.
However, beneficial interpretation can be done under ex-post facto law as per the Supreme Court
judgement in Ratan v. State of Punjab. In this case, a boy of 16 years of age was accused of house
trespass and for outraging the modesty of a girl of 7 years. He was later convicted and the
Magistrate sentenced him for 5 months imprisonment and imposed fine. The Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 came into effect after this judgement was passed which provided that a
person below 21 years of age should not usually be sentenced to imprisonment. Here the Supreme
Court held that by applying the rule of beneficial interpretation, an ex post facto law can reduce
the punishment and such an application that is beneficial to the accused does not violate Article
20(1).

(ii) Protection Against Double Jeopardy

The doctrine of double jeopardy basically provides that an accused must not be punished twice for
the same. Protection against double jeopardy is incorporated as a fundamental right in Article
20(2) of the Constitution of India.
An “enquiry” is not equal to being “prosecuted” as per the scope of this protection as was held by
the Supreme Court in Venkataraman v. Union of India, wherein first an enquiry was conducted
against the offender under Public Service Enquiry Act, as a result of which he was dismissed from
the service. Later on he was charged under Prevention of Corruption Act and under IPC. He
pleaded double jeopardy, however, Supreme Court held that mere enquiry did not amount to
prosecution and thus protection under Article 20(2) was not attracted in the case.
As can be seen, Article 20(1) of the Constitution uses the word ‘prosecution’ which tends to limit
the scope of the protection guaranteed under this Article. Therefore, even if punishment is given
earlier, if such punishment is not due to prosecution, Article 20(2) cannot be applied and an appeal
against acquittal, if provided by the procedure is in substance a continuance of the prosecution.
Thus, strict interpretation limits the protection under this Article.

(iii) Protection against self-incrimination

Fundamental right against self-incrimination, i.e., implicating oneself of committing an offence, is
incorporated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution which states that no one shall be compelled to be
a witness against themselves.
The rationale behind this right is that an accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is
established beyond reasonable doubt and it is the prosecution’s job to establish guilt. Therefore
accused need not make any statement against his will.
This right against self-incriminationis widely known as right to silence and is also incorporated in
Section 161 of CrPC which provides that a person must truthfully answer all questions that are
asked by the police officer, except such questions which, if he answered, would implicate him and
expose him to a penalty, charge or forfeiture.
In Selvi v. State of Karnata, the Supreme Court prohibited subjecting arrested person forcibly,
against his will to narcolysis or polygraphy tests. However, any information that is discovered
afterwards with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted as evidence in court
as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the same will not amount to self-incrimination.

The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, the Supreme Court held the following:-
(a) Article 20(3) of the Constitution aims to protect against self-incrimination by the accused
person
(b) Self-incrimination means conveying information by the accused which is based on his
personal knowledge
(c) Self-incrimination does not includes not only producing documents in court but also does
not contain any statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge.
(d) Giving impressions or impressions of thumb, palm, fingers, foot and writing specimens are
not included in self-incrimination.

(iv) Right to Consult a lawyer

Right to consult a legal practitioner and to be defended by a legal counsel is a fundamental right
under Article 22(1) of the Constitution It states that an arrested person must be informed of the
grounds of detention as soon as possible, and must not be denied the right to consult and to be
defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
This right of arrested person is also recognized by Section 303 of CrPC which provides that any
person accused of an offence may of right be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

(v) Right to free legal aid

Article 39A of the Constitution promotes equal justice and free legal aid and imposes a
constitutional mandate on the State to ensure that the legal system promotes justice, provides
equal opportunity, and free legal aid. State shall introduce necessary schemes and legislations to
that effect and must ensure that no citizen is denied equal opportunity to access justice due to
economic reasons or any other such reason.
Section 304 CrPC also reocgnises this right and states that in a trial before the Court, where the
accused is not represented by a counsel, and Court decides that the accused has not sufficient
means to hire a counsel for his cause, the Court should assign a counsel for his defence, and
expense is to be borne by the State.
In this case of Khatri v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that access to a legal practitioner is
implicit in Article 21, which gives fundamental right to life and liberty. The state is under
constitutional mandate to provide free legal aid to an indigent accused person and this
constitutional obligation arises not only when the trial is commenced but also when the person is
first produced before a magistrate and also when he is remanded from time to time

(vi) Right of the accused to not to be subjected to unnecessary restraint

Section 49 of CrPC states that the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is
necessary to prevent his escape.

(vii) Right to know grounds of arrest & to bail in bailable offences

Section 50 of the Code every person arrested without warrant must be fully and immediately
informed by the police officer making such arrest about the particulars of the offence and grounds
based on which such arrest has been made and in case of bailable offences, the police officer must
inform the arrested person that he is entitled to be released on bail and may also take necessary
steps to arrange for sureties on his behalf.

(viii) Right to be examined by a Medical Practitioner

Section 54 of CrPC provides that when any person is arrested, he is to be examined by a medical
officer practicing in the service of the Central Government or State Government, or in absence of
a medical officer, by a registered medical practitioner, as soon as possible after the arrest.
The medical officer or medical practitioner must make a report of examination, regarding any
marks of violence and injuries upon the body of the arrested person and also note down the
approximate time as to when the injury was inflicted. A copy of the report must be supplied to the
arrested person or to the person so nominated by the arrested person.

(ix) Right to Health & Safety

As per Section 55A of the Code, each arrested person’s health and safety should be taken care of
and the person in whose custody the arrested person is has the duty to take reasonable care of the
same.

(x) Right to be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of Arrest

Section 56 of the Code provides that the police officer making an arrest without a warrant must
produce the arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and without any
unnecessary delay.
Section 57 of the Code provides that irrespective of whether arrest has been made with or without
warrant, the person making an arrest must produce the arrested person before a magistrate without
any unnecessary delay. No police officer shall detain an arrested person for more than 24 hours
without an order of the Magistrate.
This right has been further strengthened by its incorporation as a fundamental right under Article
22 of the Indian Constitution which states that a person detained or arrested must be produced
before nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest (excluding time taken to make the journey from
the place of arrest or police station to the Magistrate’s court) and without unnecessary delay; no
person should be kept in custody without Magistrate’s order.
Importance is given to this right to fulfil the following objectives:
(a) To prevent arrest and detention as a means to compel people to give information or for
extracting confessions
(b) To provide access to judicial officer, deprived of the influence of the police, to decide
upon bail or discharge
(c) To prevent police stations from being used as prisons
It was held by the Court in Poovan v. Sub-Inspector of Police, when a Magistrate receives a
complaint that a person arrested within his jurisdiction has not been produced before him within
24 hours or has been detained for more than 24 hours without Magistrate’s order, he should call
upon the concerned police officer and inquire after such allegations. If the officer denies such
allegations, the magistrate can make appropriate inquiries into the matter and pass appropriate
orders.

(xi) Right to Speedy Trial

This right is essential and is not the accused/arrested person’s right alone, but also of the victim’s.
The State has a constitutional mandate to ensure right to speedy trial. This portion shall be
discussed in light of the leading case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, wherein petition
was filed for release of under-trial prisoners who have been imprisoned for periods that have long
exceeded the maximum punishment of the offences for which they had been put into prison. The
Supreme Court held that State cannot ignore its duty to ensure speedy trial by pleading
administrative or financial backlogs or inability.
In the above case, the Supreme Court also held that, the under-trials who had suffered for a long
time due to an inefficient system that has led to a procedure which keeps such large number of
people in prison without proper trial, and such a system cannot be said to be in consensus with
Article 21 of the Constitution and is in no way reasonable, just or fair.