Substantive laws are of no use without existence of a procedure so as to apply it, and would act only as a cadaver. This makes it necessary for us to have a procedure in order to make substantive laws pragmatic. Criminal Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter Code) being one such procedural law provides a track on which laws relating to crimes can scamper smoothly. It was year 1973 when aged Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was overhauled by Indian legislature with some objectives, relaxed access by poorer section being one such objective and among others were fair trail and expeditious justice. But, like most of the other laws, this act is not applicable in Jammu and Kashmir along with Nagaland and tribal areas which can be framed out from Section 1 of the code. But, it would also be equally important to note that Chapter VIII, X and XI are applicable in the state of Nagaland tribal areas unlike state of Jammu & Kashmir. Despite this, it has been by Supreme Court in Mowu v. Supt, Special Jail (1971) 3 SCC 936 that this non-applicability can only mean that rules would not apply and not that the authorities cannot be governed by this code.
Interestingly, it is quite worthy to become aware of the fact that places where local procedures have been followed for a long period of time, then those procedures could prevail over the provisions mentioned under the code, and this is one of the most important reasons for keeping tribal areas out of the purview of this code. Role of this code comes into play as soon as crime is committed, and this would be the act for deciding as to what would be the jurisdiction of the court, in other words to determine the court where the case will undergo trial. Investigation and inquiry are some other procedures to be followed in accordance with the act. While ascertaining jurisdiction of a court, it is necessary to check where the offence come under the ambit of any other law, any special law to be more specific. If it does, then such procedure, as mentioned under that specific act, would be followed by special court established under the act. One such example can be Army Act, where a person convicted under the act would not be able to challenge the decree under the provisions mentioned under any other act, take for example IPC. Same in applicable in case of Navy Act, where a person cannot yield benefit of any other act, and this was the view of Madras High Court in P.P. Chandrasekaran v. Government of India and Ors. 1977 CriLJ 67.
Another important provision or point which has to be kept in the mind while dealing with Criminal Procedure is the inherent power provided to High Court under section 482 of the code. But, it would be important to understand that the same powers are not provided to trial courts. The power is to review its judgment in the sense to alter that judgment itself if court is satisfied that some significant evidence or point of law was missed out in the earlier decree. Trial Courts or sub ordinate courts do not posses such kind of power and what they can do is to review its judgment by pronouncing a new decree against its original order. This position was made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Bindeswari Prasad Singh v Kali Singh AIR 1977 SC 2432, where it was held by the court that there cannot be any question for a court to apply what has not been provided under the Code, and applying what has not been provided under the code would be to surpass its power. As High Courts have this power, they can exercise it unlike judicial officer. And even if such judicial officers or magistrates are satisfied with the fact that some substantial question is to be resolved, then he can alter his decision by means of a new degree and not by altering original decision.
“I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too." - Thomas Jefferson
No comments :
Post a Comment