Landmark Judgments of Criminal Procedure (BNSS, 2023)
The 27 leading Criminal Procedure (BNSS, 2023) cases — each with a full brief (facts, issues, held, ratio). Verified against the original judgment. Free to read.
Confessions/statements, S161-164, test identification
- Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor Where Section 164 prescribes the mode of recording a confession, the Magistrate must follow it exactly; oral evidence of an unrecorded confession made to him cannot be substituted.
- Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay Identification at a test identification parade is a 'statement'; a police officer cannot prove it (barred by S162), but the identifier himself may depose to it to corroborate his court testimony under S9.
- Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar A confessional FIR made to police is inadmissible in its entirety against the maker, and cannot be split to admit incriminating portions, except facts discovered under S27.
FIR, investigation & police powers (S154–173 CrPC)
- Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad The police have an unfettered statutory right to investigate a cognizable offence without judicial sanction, and the courts have no power to interfere until a charge-sheet is filed.
- H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi An illegality or irregularity in the investigation does not by itself vitiate a trial or conviction unless it has occasioned a failure of justice or prejudice to the accused.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal Police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences; a court may quash an FIR or investigation only in the rarest categories of abuse of process laid down by the Court.
- Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh S156(3) confers wide implied and incidental powers on the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation, including to register an FIR, monitor the investigation and direct further or fair investigation.
- Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh Registration of an FIR is mandatory under S154 if the information discloses a cognizable offence; no preliminary inquiry is permitted in such a case.
Cognizance, complaint, charge & fair trial (S190-465 CrPC)
- R.R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh Taking cognizance means application of the Magistrate's mind to the offence for the purpose of proceeding under Chapter XV, not for ordering investigation or issuing a search warrant.
- Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh Mere absence or defect of a charge does not vitiate a trial; conviction stands unless the accused was misled and a failure of justice resulted.
- Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate sees only whether a prima facie case exists; he cannot weigh evidence, and the order can be quashed only in limited, defined situations.
- Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh A Magistrate may order investigation under S156(3) before taking cognizance; once cognizance is taken he must examine the complainant under S200 and may inquire under S202, but cannot revert to S156(3).
Quashing & inherent powers of the High Court (S482 CrPC)
- R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab Inherent power may quash proceedings where there is a legal bar, where allegations disclose no offence, or where there is no legal evidence to support the charge.
- State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy The High Court may quash proceedings where the ends of justice so require, ensuring criminal process is not used as a weapon of harassment or persecution.
- Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra The S397(2) bar on revising interlocutory orders does not abrogate the High Court's inherent power under S482 to prevent abuse of process or secure justice.
Maintenance (S125 CrPC) & preventive provisions (S107–151)
- Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr Section 144 CrPC and the preventive provisions of Chapter VIII are constitutionally valid; they impose reasonable restrictions on the freedoms under Article 19 and are justified by the urgency of preventing breach of peace.
- Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi Maintenance under S125 is a summary, preventive remedy against destitution; the wife's separate income is a relevant factor in fixing quantum, and the remedy stands apart from personal-law rights.
- Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh An order under S144 is a purely preventive police measure to maintain public peace; where private rights conflict with public interest the latter prevails, but the Magistrate must respect rights already adjudicated by a competent civil court.
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum A divorced Muslim woman unable to maintain herself can claim maintenance under S125 CrPC beyond the iddat period; the secular provision overrides personal law.
Arrest, bail & personal liberty (S41-60, 437-439 CrPC)
- Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Bail is the rule and jail the exception; the discretion to grant or refuse bail must be governed by relevant considerations bearing on the likelihood of the accused appearing for trial, not by punitive pre-trial detention.
- Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh Bail amounts must be reasonable and within the accused's means; courts cannot insist on heavy surety or local sureties, and should liberally release the poor, young, infirm and women on personal bonds.
- Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar The right to a speedy trial is implicit in Art 21; undertrials languishing in jail beyond reasonable periods, often unable to furnish monetary bail, must be released, and bail need not depend on monetary surety.
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab The power to grant anticipatory bail under S438 is wide and discretionary; it cannot be fettered by reading in S437 limitations and need not ordinarily be confined by mandatory time limits or onerous conditions.
- Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh No arrest may be made merely because it is lawful to do so; police must record reasons justifying necessity, and the arrestee has rights to inform a relative and consult a lawyer.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar For offences punishable up to seven years, police must not arrest automatically; arrest must satisfy the S41(1)(b) necessity conditions, recorded in writing, with S41A notice issued where arrest is not required.
Sentencing, appeals, revision & reference
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab Where the accused's appeal against conviction is heard with the State's revision for enhancement, the sentence may be enhanced without separate S377(3) notice, the accused having had the opportunity to be heard.
- Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka An appellate court has full power to review evidence in an acquittal appeal, but must not disturb a possible, reasonable view of the trial court.
