Top 10 Landmark Judgments on Criminal Procedure Code

criminal procedure code judgements crpc 1

Top 10 Landmark Judgments on Criminal Procedure Code

BY: HARSHIL VAISHNAV

 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 came in force on 1st April 1974. It is a procedural law laid down by the legislation to provide for the procedures to be followed in case of investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty.

 

There are various judgments given by various Courts across the territory of India. Some of the landmark judgments are mentioned below:

  • Maintenance under Section 125:

Mohd. Ahmed Khan V. Shah Bano Begum and Ors.-

This case deals with the maintenance to a Muslim Woman. The Court held that the Sec 125 of CrPC applies throughout India, irrespective of the Religion of a person. Even though Muslim Personal Laws don’t provide for maintenance to Muslim wives, they are entitled to claim maintenance under Sec 125 of CrPc.

 

  • Scope of Discharge under Section 227:

Sajjan Kumar V. C.B.I.-

The Supreme Court held that if at the initial stage there is a strong suspicion leagind the court to presume that the person accused has committed the offence, then the court can not by itself say that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.

 

  • Preventive detention- non supply of copy order in translated language

Ramki v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015)-

The court held that the preventive detention order is quashed due to non supply of report in vernacular language.

 

  • Rape- DNA Test of accused mandatory in nature Sec 53-A

Richpal Kharra V. State (2015)-

The court held that Sec 53-A is mandatory in nature. It is compulsory for the accused to provide sample for DNA testing.

 

  • Sec 156(3)- application before Magistrate-

Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others-

The court opined that the practice of filing a writ petition due to the reason that the person was not allowed to register an FIR at the police station should be discouraged by the High Court as there are other remedies available under Sec 36 and Sec 154(3) of CrPC and even if that fails then a person can file an application before a Magistrate under Sec 156(3) of CrPC.

 

  • Criminal revision application-

P.P. Prasad Vs. Lt. Commander and ors.-

The court said that the proceedings of a court martial should take place according to the law and that both the parties should be given an opportunity to present their case before the court and also should be allowed to be represented by a lawyer if they want to do so.

 

  • Issuance of warrant under Sec 82(1) or 82(4)-

Thirumali Kumar Vs. State-

The Court held that a warrant issued by a court for the arrest of an alleged person is only for the purpose of bringing him before the court for trial and not to find him guilty. A Magistrate can on him own issue an arrest warrant against a person if he finds any relevant information regarding the same. A report filed by police is not mandatory to issue an arrest warrant.

 

  • Bail under Sec 438-

Avinash v. State (2015)-

The court held that suggesting paying a sum of money to the wife who is not able to maintain herself and her child cannot be termed as buying the bail and it can be imposed as a condition to grant bail by the court.

  • Constitutional Validity of Sec 172(3)-

Mukund Lal v. Union of India & Anr.

The court while upholding the constitutional validity of sec 172(3) stated that the Courts are conferred with such powers as making it an ultimate custodian of justice. Since a court can look into the records and diaries of the police, there won’t be any failure in delivery of justice to the accused.

 

  • Awarding of Death Penalty Sec 354(3)-

Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab-

The court summed up Sec 354(3) Cr. P. C. and held that a court while awarding sentence of death to a convict should specify the special reasons for such award of sentence in the judgment. It also held that awarding of sentences other than death penalty are a general rule.

 

 

Harshil Vaishnav is a law student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University and contributes and utilizes his skills and strengths effectively in the field of law.

(Visited 338 times, 4 visits today)