Registration Of FIR On The Basis Of Panchnama Is Not Proper: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that registration of FIR on the basis of panchnama is erroneous and not proper.
The Court held this in a Criminal Revision Petition which was filed by the accused, Dayanand after his conviction under Sections 32, 34 and 38-A of Karnataka Excise Act was upheld by Appellate Court.
The bench of Justice S. Rachaiah observed, “Ex.P1 being a panchanama, it cannot be termed as a complaint. FIR cannot be registered on the basis of panchanama, however, in the present case, the respondent has registered the FIR on the basis of panchanama which is erroneous and not proper.”
Advocate Pratheep K C appeared for the Appellant and HCGP Rahul Rai appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
It is the case of the prosecution that the officials of Hunsur Excise Range intercepted the vehicle of the accused and enquired about the permit and other related documents to transport the said liquor. The sub-inspector of Excise arrested the accused and interrogated them and also seized the items which were carried by the accused. After seizing the liquor, the Sub-Inspector sent the samples to FSL for chemical analysis. According to the complaint, 48 bottles of liquor were seized by the Sub-Inspector and each bottle contained 180 ml of Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey. The case was registered against the accused after which the police conducted an investigation and submitted a charge sheet.
The Court perused Sections 154 and 157 of Cr.P.C after it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the search and seizure conducted without registration of FIR in respect of cognizable offence is bad in law.
The Court noted that there are two kinds of FIRs namely, the FIR can be registered by the informant which was duly signed by him. Secondly, the FIR can be registered by the police officer himself on any information received by him. In both cases, the information should be reduced to writing and thereafter, the investigation must be carried out.
As per the Court, the trial Court ought not to have acted upon such FIR which was registered on the basis of panchnama and cognizance should not have been taken on the strength of the said FIR.
However, the Court noted that the trial Court and the Appellate Court had committed an error by considering the said FIR as appropriate and proper and recorded the conviction therefore, according to the Court such conviction would be rendered as ineffective and the same can be termed as non est in law.
The Court further stated that when the registration of FIR itself is void ab initio, the subsequent proceedings including the judgments are liable to be set aside.
The Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition.
Cause Title: Dayanand @ R Babu v. State of Karnataka
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Pratheep K C
Respondent: HCGP Rahul Rai
