0

CONCERNS REGARDING THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS IN COMPLIANCE WITH BNSS, THE SOP FOR AUDIO-VIDEO RECORDING AT CRIME SCENES.

Articles, Legal procedure, News & Media links , , , , , , , , , ,

Under the new criminal procedure legislation, known as Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Ministry of Home Affairs has released a Standard of Procedure for the audio and video recording of crime scenes as suggested guidelines.

To meet their immediate need for a handholding document, field practitioners participated in extensive brainstorming sessions that resulted in the preparation of the SOP. In order to guarantee the admission of crime scene photos and videos in a court of law, it serves as a guideline for the functional and operational aspects of the field.

The technical elements, such as the contents, analysis, and photos obtained by forensic specialists, are only superficial and not thoroughly covered.

It has now been made clear that the SOP is a set of recommended guidelines that are shared for use by law enforcement and police units in states and central organizations. However, the states and central police organizations are free to expand upon this basic structure in accordance with their unique requirements and the need for special acts that are dependent on these procedural laws.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SOP:

The two parts of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) are the Standing Operating Procedure for Videography in Investigative Compliance & Seizure of Electronic and Digital Devices Found as Part of Investigation and General Police Procedures for Videography.

  1. For the public to have faith in the police to accurately and truthfully document and preserve crime scenes, they need to be equipped with basic technology and the right training.

  1. By abiding by the general guidelines provided, state units and central police organizations will improve the environment of evidence gathering through audio-video recording.

  1. The investigating officer should follow a systematic procedure while entering the crime scene to ensure that no important evidence is overlooked.

  1. Independent witnesses, who could or might not be government representatives, will be present during the search. When conducting a search, police officers may also be mentioned as witnesses if no witnesses are present. The witnesses who are also known as Panch Witnesses are required to sign the seizure memo.

  1. Because they are admissible evidence, seizure memoranda pertaining to objects that were collected at the accused’s request should be properly drafted.

  1. For official criminal investigation purposes, only digital cameras and audio video recorders that have been approved and provided by the department may be utilized.

  1. There must be no breaks during the whole filming of the show. Additionally, it is mandatory for all members of the first responder or forensic teams to remain silent and refrain from talking during the videography process to prevent the defense from using it to undermine the integrity of the investigation. The same is anticipated of the in attendance witnesses.

  1. The officer in charge of the police station must provide the following: video recordings of crime scenes, records of searches and seizures, information relevant to cases that qualify for a formal complaint (FIR), and orders on the custody and disposal of property.

  1. Both the handler (or manager) and an expert must certify each audio-video recording made as part of procedural compliance, investigative compliance, and the seizure of pertinent digital evidence.

  1. As required by the New Criminal Laws, the states must provide for the additional needs of police stations regarding audio-video recording. These needs include a dedicated desktop for the Evidence Specialist, Data Manager, Information Assistant, and First Responders; a vehicle specifically designed to transport digital forensic experts and first responders to the crime scene; a room specifically designated for forensic teams and first responders; and storage facilities at data centers for parallel storage.

  1. Many central and state units have previously built an Android, iOS, or MS-based program that is backed by a web application. However, with the introduction of the New Criminal Laws, NCRB is now introducing a cloud-based audio/video recording application through “e-Sakshya” that will be integrated with CCTNS-2.0.

  1. The eSakshya Platform integration will be mandatory for states.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

0

Prosecution of Public Officials Under Section 197 Crpc Can Be Done Without Government’s Sanction: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Shadakshari Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2024

Decided on: 17.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This appeal is based on the order of the High Court of Karnataka, dated 19.12.2016, which dismissed the appellant’s complaint; the chargesheet in C.C. No.116 of 2018, and the order issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belur, dated 28.03.2018.

As the complainant, the appellant filed a first information report on December 19, 2016, alleging that respondent No. 2 and another were forging property documents, such as a death certificate, a family tree of the appellant’s original successor to land, and so forth, irregularly and illegally in the name of a deceased person, knowing full well that they were fake documents.

Respondent No. 2 is an accountant for the village. In order to have the FIR quashed, he filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the High Court.

According to the High Court’s order, it was premature to intervene in a FIR of this nature because a reading of the FIR established a case for investigation. The High Court did not step in, but it did permit respondent No. 2 to file a lawsuit in the event that an adverse report had been issued.

Filing a final report under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, the investigating officer registered chargesheet No.12/2018 with the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class. Three people are named accused on the charge sheet.

They were charged under the IPC’s Sections 471, 468, 467, 465, 420, 409, 466, and 423, as well as Section 34. The chargesheet also includes the names of thirty-one witnesses.

Respondent No.2 petitioned in the High Court again under Section 482 Cr.PC to have the complaint and charge sheet quashed.

Respondent No. 2 was a public servant, the High Court observed. The prosecution claims that he committed the crime against him while carrying out his official responsibilities. After requesting sanction, the investigating officer was unable to proceed with respondent No. 2’s prosecution. The High Court determined that in these situations, the prosecution of a criminal offence against a public servant could not proceed due to the denial of sanction. It was the High Court that dismissed the charge sheet and complaint.

ISSUES:

Whether sanction is required to prosecute a public servant who faces accusation of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Judges and public officials are subject to prosecution under Section 197 Cr.PC. Subsection (1) of Section 197 states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence unless the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, has previously sanctioned it. This applies to anyone who is or was a judge, magistrate, or public servant and who is not removable from office without the approval of the government.

 APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant contends that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint, chargesheet, and cognizance order. He contends that no sanction to prosecute respondent No. 2 was required because the creation of a false document cannot be considered part of respondent No. 2’s official duties. In support of his contention, he has relied on this Court’s decision in Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997), which held that it is not the official duty to fabricate records or misappropriate public funds.

RESPONDANTS CONTENTION:

The respondent contended that the High Court’s order was correct in quashing the complaint and chargesheet. Without the authority to prosecute a public servant, the latter cannot be prosecuted. This is a well-established proposition, and it has relied on a decision of this Court in D. Devaraja vs. Obais Sanders Hussain.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court stated in the D. Devaraja case, on which the respondent relied, that this court has consistently held that Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It only applies to acts or omissions committed by public servants in the course of their official duties.

The court held that producing such documents or fabricating records cannot be considered part of a public servant’s official duties. If that is the case, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the complaint and chargesheet in their entirety, especially since there are two other accused persons besides respondent No. 2. As a result, the court overturned the high court’s order quashing the complaint and charge sheet.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read the judgement