Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 48

66. Summary of conclusions and recommendations.-

Our conclusions and recommendations are summarised below:-

(i) The proposal to confer jurisdiction on the Central Bureau of Investigation to make investigation in respect of certain offences relating to matters in the Union List, is approved in principle. A recommendation is also made for the creation of Courts under Union Legislation for the trial of such offences1.

(ii) Confessions made to police officers should be exempt from the bar imposed by sections 25 and 26 Evidence Act, if certain conditions are satisfied2.

(iii) All accused persons must be furnished with counsel for their defence at the State expense3.

(iv) As to improving the existing law contained in sections 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to statements made to the police during investigation, no further recommendations have been made4.

(v) The proposal in the Bill to take away powers of revision against interlocutory orders is approved in principle5.

(vi) The proposed provision for grant of anticipatory bail is accepted, with certain modifications requiring notice before the final order is passed and intimation to the police after passing the interim or final order6.

(vii) Proceedings for maintenance under section 488 should cover claims of indigent parents7 also8.

(viii) The proposed provision for filing written arguments is approved in principle9.

(ix) No further suggestions for improvements in other respects with a view to curtailing delays in investigation, trial or appeal are made, owing to the very limited time available10.

(x) In the proposed provision as to the power of "appointment" of Sessions Judges and other officers, drafting changes are recommended11.

(xi) The power to arrest a person for a design to commit offences should be coupled with certain safeguards, namely, the recording of reasons by the police officer and communication of the same to the nearest Magistrate12.

(xii) Statements recorded by Magistrates during the course of investigation should be admissible, if the accused was present and had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness13.

(xiii) Commitment proceedings should be abolished, as already recommended by the previous Commission14.

(xiv) Examination of the accused to elicit his case is recommended, in all trials15.

(xv) Both parties should be heard16 as to the appropriate sentence to be passed, and should be given an opportunity to lead evidence on the subject.

(xvi) The Government should, before granting pardon, remission etc.17 in respect of sentences, consult the Court by which the sentence was passed or confirmed.

(xvii) Appeals against acquittal, whether by the Government or by a private party, should be allowed only if the High Court grants special leave18.

(xviii) Appeals under Article 134 of the Constitution will be dealt with in a separate report19.

(xix) (a) The scope of proceedings for maintenance, under section 488 should be expanded, so as to cover claim by a wife divorced extra┬Čjudicially and untill re-marriage20. Consequentially, clause 128(5) of the Cr. P.C. Bill, 1970, will also need modification21.

(b) The section should also cover claims for maintenance by the mother of the illegitimate child or by an unmarried woman rendered pregnant22.

(c) Legal aid should be provided in proceedings under this section23.

(xx) Power of cancellation of an order for maintenance on a change in status, should be expressly provided for24.

1. Paras. 5 to 7.

2. Paras. 9 to 22.

3. Paras. 23 to 28.

4. Para. 29.

5. Para. 30.

6. Para. 31.

7. Paras. 32 to 34.

8. See also item (xix) below.

9. Para. 35.

10. Para. 36.

11. Paras. 38-39.

12. Para. 40.

13. Para. 41.

14. Paras. 42-43.

15. Para. 44.

16. Para. 45.

17. Paras. 46-47.

18. Paras. 48 to 58.

19. Para. 59.

20. Para. 61. See also item (iii), above.

21. To be carried out under clause 128(5), Cr. P.C. Bill, 1970.

22. Para. 62.

23. Para. 63.

24. Para. 64. 6.

Before we part with this Report, we ought to put on record our warm appreciation of the assistance received by us from our Secretary, Shri P.M. Bakshi. In this case, a formal reference to the Commission was made on 1st July, 1972. Thereafter, at short notice, Shri Bakshi prepared a Working Paper on the questions referred to us. We considered the said draft as well as some other points which we thought were important enough to invite our recommendations suo mote. After we reached our conclusions on all these points, Shri Bakshi prepared a final draft for our discussion and approval. In the whole of this process, Shri Bakshi's assistance has been very valuable to us.

P.B. Gajendragadkar, Chairman.

V.R. Krishna Iyer, Members.

P.K. Tripathi, Members.

S.S. Dhavan, Members.

P.M. Bakshi, Secretary.

New Delhi,

Dated: 25th July, 1972.

Some questions Under the Code of Criminal Procedure Bill, 1970 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys