Top News Headlines 7th April 2022: Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022 Passed By Parliament

Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022 Passed By Parliament; Opposition Calls It Dangerous 

• The Rajya Sabha has passed the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022 which would enable investigating officers to collect the biometric details of prisoners. The Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on 4th April. 
• The Bill proposes to allow police to collect fingerprints, palm print impressions, photographs, iris and retina scans, physical and biological samples. The Bill also proposes to collect other behavioural attributes including signatures, handwriting or any examination referred under section 53 and 53A of CrPC.
• Section 6(2) of the Bill also provides that any resistance offered to the police in collecting the biometrics will be punishable under section 186 IPC attracting an imprisonment of three months and a fine upto Rs.500.
• Section 4(2) of the Bill states that the records will be maintained for a period of 75 years from the date of the collection. 
• Section 5 of the Bill states that if the Magistrate is satisfied that for the purpose of an investigation under CrPC or any other law, it is expedient to direct any person to give his measurement under the Bill, the Magistrate may make an order to that effect and it is mandatory for the person to allow the taking of his measurements in accordance with the order of the Magistrate. 
• In the discussion which ensued in the Rajya Sabha, the opposition leader P. Chidambaram called the Bill ‘dangerous’ and violative of Articles 20 and 21. He also said that it was violative of the right to privacy which has been held to be a fundamental right in Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India. In addition to this, the said that the Bill was opposed to the Apex Court’s decision in Selvi vs State of Karnataka where narco analysis, brain mapping and other such techniques were held to be violative of the right to Privacy. 
• It was also pointed out that there were provisions in CrPC which deal with identification, and that it isn't clear why this Bill was introduced at all. Mr Chidambaram was also of the view that when Bills like these are passed in the Parliament, this leads to a blatant violation of the Constitution. He also said that various suggestions were given in the Lok Sabha to amend the Bill, to refer it to the Standing Committee etc. but none of them were agreed to by the Government. The Bill was passed as it was introduced and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that any of the measurements, including handwriting and finger impressions, are unique to any individual. 
• Home Minister Amit Shah said that these new techniques were essential in solving crimes and increasing the conviction rate. Addressing the concerns of the fellow members, Shah explained that the provisions of the Act would only be used in cases of heinous offences and assured that the data will not be made available to Police agencies. The National Crime Records Bureau will be responsible for the storage and maintenance of the records, as is provided in section 4. 
• BJP MP Mahesh Jethmalani also stated that the decision of the Apex Court in the Puttawamy judgement is filled with references where the Court has held that in cases of detection of crimes, the right to privacy stands excluded. 
• The government has also clarified that persons who are not convicted of crimes against women or children or are in custody for an offence which is punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years can deny permission to give their biological samples. The same has been provided in the proviso to section 3 of the Bill. 
• This Bill has also repealed the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. 
• While the opposition may call this Bill a violation of the Constitution (no surprises there!), it would go a long way to secure convictions of repeat offenders and would certainly increase the conviction rate. This Bill is a necessity of the modern times and if implemented, would help the law enforcement agencies in proper investigation of crimes. 

Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad HC

• In the case of Yogendra Kumar Mishra vs State of UP and anr the Allahabad HC has denied bail to a POCSO accused who had allegedly raped a minor girl and her mother, and has also observed that an absconder or a proclaimed offender is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 
• In the present case, the accused had been booked under sections 376 and 328 IPC, 3/4 POCSO and 67 IT Act for allegedly raping a minor girl and her mother, who is the complainant in the case. 
• The defence had argued that the accused and the complainant were in a consensual relationship, despite the fact that the accused is a married man and the complainant is separated from her husband. The defence had also argued that the complainant is a teacher in a school where the accused works as a class IV employee. When the informant had asked him to marry her, he refused and the present case was thus lodged out of spite. 
• The accused’s anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court, and thus, he had approached the High Court. 
• The State had opposed the grant of anticipatory bail by arguing that both the complainant as well as her minor daughter had made a categorical statement under section 164 CrPC that they were raped by the accused multiple times. It was also argued that the accused was not cooperating with the police and a bailable warrant had been issued against him, and proceedings under section 82 and 83 (proclamation and attachment) of CrPC had also been initiated against him, and thus no case of anticipatory bail could be made out. 
• The Allahabad HC relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad vs State of Bihar and anr AIR 2021 SC. It was in this case that the Apex Court had relied upon the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Pradeep Sharma (2014) SCC wherein it was held that if anyone has been declared absconding or a proclaimed offender, he will not be entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 
• The Court also referred to the case of Lavesh vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) SCC where the Court had held that where a person against whom a warrant has been issued, is absconding or concealing himself to as to avoid the execution of the same and is declared a proclaimed offender under section 82 CrPC, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
• The Court went into the merits of the case and observed that the applicant inspired the confidence of the complainant and her minor daughter and when they posed complete faith in him, he violated their trust. The averments made in the statements recorded under 164 CrPC also show that the applicant not only raped the complainant, but also her daughter and that he threatened them with a video recording that he has of them, saying that he would make that video viral. 
• The Court thus held that if the case is decided on merits, the averments made by the complainant and her daughter are very serious allegations, and in view of the same and the decisions of the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, no case of anticipatory bail is made out.  
• Thus, the application was rejected and the applicant was given a two weeks time to surrender before the Trial Court and move an application for regular bail. In case such an application is made, the Trial Court was asked to decide it expeditiously, in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI and anr (2021) SCC. 

Acquittal Based On Benefit of Doubt, Period Of Suspension Cannot Be Treated As ‘On Duty’: Bombay HC

• In the case of Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad vs Union of India the Bombay HC has held that if a government servant is suspended on account of charges for a serious crime, and is acquitted because of a benefit of doubt, he is not entitled to the regularisation of the period of suspension by being treated as ‘on duty’.
• In the instant case, an FIR was registered under section 419 read with section 34 of the IPC against the accused who was a worker in an Ordinance Factory, as a result of which he was placed under suspension on 12/11/2009 under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, commonly known as the CCA Rules, 1965. 
• At his trial, the Judicial Magistrate had observed that if the nature of the evidence put forth is considered, the charge alleged against the accused could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It was on this premise that the accused was acquitted. 
• Based on this acquittal, the petitioner had sought revocation of the suspension and the regularisation of suspension period as ‘on duty’. While the former application was granted, the latter was declined on the ground that the acquittal was not honourable. 
• The Hon’ble HC referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and ors vs Methu Meda (2022) SCC where the Court had observed that in a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution, until proven beyond reasonable doubt. In case the prosecution failed to examine the crucial witnesses or the witnesses have turned hostile, such acquittal would fall within the purview of giving benefit of doubt and the accused cannot be treated as honourably acquitted by the Court. 
• In light of the aforementioned case and the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the HC observed that the eye-witnesses examined had not supported the prosecution case and the Investigating Officer had not been examined to prove the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses. It was because of this that the Judicial Magistrate had observed that the charge against the accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and in light of the aforementioned judgement, the acquittal could not be said to be honourable. 
• The Court also observed that if the Competent Authority was of the opinion that the suspension in question was wholly justified, the government servant would be entitled to full pay and allowance. But if the nature of the allegations against the accused here were considered, the bench found that the suspension of the applicant was justified. The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar vs State of Maharashtra and ors (1997) SCC.
• Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.