Manga @ Man Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2008, decided on May
3, 2013
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court on the facts and circumstances of the case held:
“In the first place, it is
not shown as to how such a delay caused any prejudice to the accused. Except
merely stating that the three days delay in forwarding the express report
belies the case of the prosecution as alleged, nothing else was shown in
support of the said submission. In fact the trial Court dealt with this very
submission. The trial Court has noted that the investigating officer was not
questioned at all about the reasons for not sending the report prior to
24.11.2001. It has further noted that in the ‘Panchnama’ of the deceased
Mehroof, the crime was clearly mentioned along with the relevant sequence of
crime. The trial Court has therefore, found that without recording the First
Information Report on that very day, namely, 21.11.2001, the crime number could
not have been mentioned in the ‘Panchnama’ [Para
17]
“In the case on hand nothing
was put to PW-13 (Investigating Officer) as regards the alleged delay in
sending the FIR to the Magistrate and or to any prejudice was caused to the
appellants on that account. It would have enabled the Investigating Officer to
explain the reason for the delay. In any event nothing has been shown as to any
prejudice caused to the appellants on the ground of alleged delay in sending a
copy of FIR to the Magistrate. [Para 19]
“we hold that there was no
dearth in the process of investigation based on the factum of the alleged
occurrence on 21.11.2001, as reported by the complainant PW-2 and the mere
delay in forwarding of the express report to the Magistrate has not caused any
dent in the case of the prosecution. In other words, we have no difficulty in
stating that the FIR was factually recorded without delay and the investigation
started on the basis of the FIR and in the absence of any other infirmity in
that respect, the delay in forwarding the report to the Magistrate does not in
any way vitiate the case of the prosecution.” [Para 20]
The Court noted
following case laws:
Sandeep v. State of Uttar Pradesh - 2012 (6) SCC 107, wherein the
court dealt with the implication of Section 157 CrPC. and held as under:
“62. It was also feebly contended on behalf of the appellants that
the express report was not forwarded to the Magistrate as stipulated under
Section 157 Cr.PC. instantaneously. According to the learned counsel FIR which
was initially registered on 17-11-2004 was given a number on 19-11-2004 as FIR
No.116 of 2004 and it was altered on 20-11-2004 and was forwarded only on
25-11-2004 to the Magistrate. As far as the said contention is concerned, we
only wish to refer to the reported decision of this Court in Pala Singh v.
State of Punjab wherein this Court has clearly held that (SCC p. 645, para 8)
where the FIR was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started
on the basis of that FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to the notice
of the court then, however improper or objectionable the delay in receipt of
the report by the Magistrate concerned be, in the absence of any prejudice to
the accused it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation
was tainted and the prosecution insupportable.
63. Applying the above ratio in Pala Singh to the case on hand,
while pointing out the delay in the forwarding of the FIR to the Magistrate, no
prejudice was said to have been caused to the appellants by virtue of the said
delay. As far as the commencement of the investigation is concerned, our
earlier detailed discussion discloses that there was no dearth in that aspect.
In such circumstances we do not find any infirmity in the case of the
prosecution on that score. In fact the above decision was subsequently followed
in Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. and Subash Chander v. Krishan Lal.”
Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajansingh and Ors. v. State of Haryana – (2011)
7 SCC 421. The Court held as under:
“29. It is not that as if every delay in sending the report to the
Magistrate would necessarily lead to the inference that the FIR has not been
lodged at the time stated or has been ante-timed or ante-dated or investigation
is not fair and forthright. Every such delay is not fatal unless prejudice to
the accused is shown. The expression “forthwith” mentioned therein does not
mean that the prosecution is required to explain delay of every hour in sending
the FIR to the Magistrate. In a given case, if number of dead and injured
persons is very high, delay in dispatching the report is natural. Of course,
the same is to be sent within reasonable time in the prevalent circumstances.
31. In view of the above, we are in agreement with the High Court
that there was no delay either in lodging the FIR or in sending the copy of the
FIR to the Magistrate. It may be pertinent to point out that the defence did
not put any question on these issues while cross-examining the investigating
officer, providing him an opportunity to explain the delay, if any. Thus, we do
not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants in this regard.”
Shivlal & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh- AIR 2012 SC 280, the
significance and relevance relating to sending a copy of FIR to the Illaqa
Magistrate has been explained as under in paragraph 9:
“9.……..the Magistrate must be immediately informed of every serious
offence so that he may be in a position to act under Section 159, Cr.P.C., if
so required. The object of the statutory provision is to keep the Magistrate
informed of the investigation so as to enable him to control investigation and,
if necessary, to give appropriate direction. However, it is not that as if
every delay in sending the report to the Magistrate would necessarily lead to
the inference that the FIR has not been lodged at the time stated or has been
ante-timed or ante-dated or investigation is not fair and forthright. In a
given case there may be an explanation for delay. An unexplained inordinate
delay in sending the copy of the FIR to Illaka Magistrate may affect the
prosecution case adversely. However, such an adverse inference may be drawn on
the basis of attending circumstances involved in a case”.
Follow the link to see the full text: