Karnataka High Court Approves Homicide Suspect’s Request for Courts to Write Initials on Every Page of Case Diary

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order rejecting the plea of ​​a murder accused seeking a direction to the trial courts to add his signature or initials on every page of the case diary maintained by the investigating agencies to prevent any tampering. and fabrication.

While doing so, the court said that since there is no such provision in the relevant law regarding signing of the case diary, it can only interpret the law and cannot legislate under the guise of interpretation.

A dividing bench Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind The BJP dismissed the appeal challenging the single-judge bench verdict moved by Muhammad Shiyab, one of the various accused arrested and detained in 2022 for allegedly murdering Yuva Morcha member Praveen Nettaru. Shiyab was also arrested under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

The division bench said:Neither the law nor the Rules provide anywhere that every page of the diary must be signed by the investigating officer. Therefore, it is not possible to add another word or such a provision to the language or to read such an obligation by stating it. It is an established principle in the interpretation and legal application of the law that the court acts on the basis of the plain words of the law, without adding anything to the language. Adding to the language means making a law, which is not permissible. The court cannot overstep the line by creating something that is not included in the law. The duty of the court ends where legislative authority begins. The duty of the court is to interpret the law as it is, not to enact laws under the guise of interpretation. It is not permissible to provide more than what is stated in black and white.”.

Background

The court of first instance issued an arrest warrant and in connection with this, the case diary, which was withdrawn by the investigating officer, was summoned. The appellant-accused had filed a memorandum in the trial court for collection of the case diary. He also requested that initials be written to verify the entries on each page of the diary, but this request was rejected on November 16, 2022, on the grounds that there was no such provision.

Against this, he approached the single judge bench with a writ petition, seeking a direction to the trial court – Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Tribunal for NIA Cases Trial “to sign or affix his initials on every page of the case diary recorded by law”. “The defendant had read Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code under Sections 120B, 302 and Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act from page 1 to the last page and continued this practice till the filing of the charge sheet.” He was asked to observe the same practice.

The only judge who rejected this defense said: While the entries in the case diary maintained under Section 172(1) CrPC will accompany the arrest warrant, “nowhere does it state that the Magistrate must affix his signature at every point at which an arrest warrant is passed or every time the case diary is summoned to the Courthouse.” Appellant he later moved closer to the episode order.

The appellant (the plaintiff before the single judge bench) relied on Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in support of his case. It was his case that when the court diary was presented before the Court, an initial was required to be placed on each page of the court diary. He said that the practice of putting initials on each page was not mentioned in the Karnataka Criminal Practice Rules, 1968, but it was provided for in the Rules of other States.

For this reason, it was claimed that in order to prevent distortion and fabrication, the initials of the investigation officer’s name were requested to be written on each page and the Court should make this mandatory.

Meanwhile, counsel for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the plea saying that the petitioner was seeking an order in the nature of legislative exercise from the Supreme Court; whereas there was no such provision in the “law on Rules in support of prayer”. In the petition”.

Findings

Referring to the decision of the single judge panel, the Supreme Court said: “The learned Single Judge discussed in detail the decisions of the Supreme Court which laid down the principle that it is not the duty of the Court to expand its jurisdiction by indulging in legislation. It has rightly been observed that if the language of the provision is clear, the Court cannot read anything further and the Court cannot direct, add anything or read additional words in the law..”

Referring to Section 172 of the CrPC, the division bench noted that Sub-Section (2) provides that “police diaries may be required by the Court but the diary cannot be used as evidence in the case”.

The board added that it could be used “solely to assist in the investigation or prosecution.” He further submitted that Subsection (3) provides that the accused or his representatives have no right to request or view such diaries.

The high court later said: “It was therefore envisaged that the police diary should not be considered as evidence, but the court received aid and assistance from it. Nowhere in this section is it provided that every page of such a diary must be signed by the investigating officer. The Code of Practice of the State of Karnataka regarding investigation also does not contain such a provision.”.

The high court also emphasized that a writ of mandamus to do something not provided for in a statute does not lie. He said the applicable legal provision “directs the course and path” of mandamus.

“There must be a positive obligation to justify the issuance of an order to do an act or not to do that act, and this provision must exist or be supported by a legal provision. Even otherwise, no factor can be cited by the petitioner or it can be established that a situation exists that would justify the acceptance of the prayers made in the petition.” said the bench.

The Supreme Court, which found no error in the decision of the single judge panel, rejected the objection.

Case Title: Mohammed Shiyab AND National Investigation Agency

Appellant Lawyer: Lawyer Muhammed Tahir

Respondent Counsel: SPP P Prasanna Kumar

Quote Number: 2024 LiveLaw (Snow) 452

Case No: WRITE OBJECTION NO. 102nd OF 2024

Click Here to Read/Download the Order