The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the State, ruling that a Public Prosecutor has no independent authority to seek police remand of an accused under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) unless such a request is made by the investigating agency.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while dismissing the petition filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, observed that the investigating agency had neither sought supplementary investigation nor requested police custody of the respondents.
Background of the Case
The case stems from FIR No. 100/2005 registered for offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, and 323 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. A criminal challan titled “State of J&K vs. Dilbagh Singh and others” was presented before the trial court.
The respondents in the present petition (Dhanwanter Singh and others) were arrayed as accused in the challan but had absconded. Consequently, proceedings under Section 512 CrPC were initiated against them. The trial court delivered a judgment of acquittal on August 19, 2013, in favour of the co-accused who faced the trial. The State filed an appeal against this acquittal (Acquittal Appeal No. 163/2013), which is pending before the Division Bench.
Following the acquittal of the co-accused, the absconding respondents surrendered before the trial court on January 25, 2014. The State, through the Special Public Prosecutor, filed an application seeking police remand of the respondents, arguing that their custodial interrogation was necessary to “cull out the specific role” attributed to them in the commission of the offence before filing a supplementary challan.
The Sessions Judge, Jammu, dismissed the application vide order dated March 6, 2014, noting that no request for police remand had been made by the police. Aggrieved by this order, the State filed the instant revision petition.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Sanjay Parihar examined the record and noted that the revision petition was filed on March 19, 2014, but no urgency was shown by the appellant for over ten years.
The High Court observed that after the trial court declined police custody, the respondents admitted the earlier evidence recorded during the trial of the co-accused. In view of the acquittal of the co-accused on the same evidence, the respondents were also acquitted on March 19, 2014.
Regarding the legal question of the Public Prosecutor’s authority to seek remand, the Court made the following significant observation:
“The record shows that the investigating agency neither had sought supplementary investigation nor requested police custody of the respondents. The Public Prosecutor, without such a request, had no independent authority to seek police remand under Section 167 CrPC.”
The Court further held that once the charge-sheet was filed against all accused, “it implied that no further custodial interrogation was considered necessary, rendering the impugned order being perfectly in consonance with law.”
Decision
The High Court held that with the subsequent acquittal of the respondents on March 19, 2014, the impugned order dated March 6, 2014, had merged into the final judgment, rendering the revision petition infructuous. The Court noted that no material was placed on record to show if the acquittal dated March 19, 2014, had been separately challenged.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition along with the connected application.
Case Details:
- Case Title: State of J&K Vs. Dhanwanter Singh and ors.
- Case Number: CRR No. 17/2014
- Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Parihar
