Criminal Procedure Code 1973,Sections 242, 173(2)(5)(a), 362 and 482

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 242, 173(2)(5)(a), 362 and 482—Order of authorisation for investigation could not be filed along with the charge­sheet—Application was filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 242 Cr.P.C. to bring on record the authorisation for investigation issued to the DSP—Application dismissed on the ground that no proper explanation had been furnished for not filing the same along with the charge-sheet—Subsequently, the authorisation was again sought to be brought on record by the prosecution invoking Section 173(2)(5)(a) of the Code—Said application under Section 482 also got dismissed applying the principles of res judicata even though there had been no adjudication on merits earlier.—Appeal against—Held, the truth and veracity of the authorisation order not being in issue, the failure to file it along with the charge­sheet was an omission constituting a procedural lapse only—The rejection of the first application not having been ordered on merits, but for failure to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the delay, Section 362 Cr.P.C has no relevance on facts.—There was no impediment in the appellant seeking to bring the same on record subsequently under Section 173(2)(5)(a) of the Code—The failure to bring the authorisation on record, was more a matter of procedure, which is but a handmaid of justice—Substantive justice must always prevail over procedural or technical justice—To hold that failure to explain delay in a procedural matter would operate as res judicata will be a travesty of justice considering that the present is a matter relating to corruption in public life by holder of a public post—The rights of an accused are undoubtedly important, but so is the rule of law and societal interest in ensuring that an alleged offender be subjected to the laws of the land in the larger public interest—To put the rights of an accused at a higher pedestal and to make the rule of law and societal interest in prevention of crime, subservient to the same cannot be considered as dispensation of justice—A balance therefore has to be struck—A procedural lapse cannot be placed at par with what is or may be substantive violation of the law—Appeal Allowed—Prosecution is permitted to bring the order of authorisation for investigation on record.     

Click here to download the full text of the judgment

Search By:

Act  |  Topic  |  Keyword

Web Version | Subscribe | T&C | Contact Us