Sir, I am working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Hyderabad City. Few months back I received a complaint form the authorized authority that he received information that one shop owner is selling/ letting on rent the pirated Video CDs. Since the information furnished by him is a hear say, I made an entry in the General Diary mentioning all the facts of the written information and drafter search proceeding u/s 165 Cr.P.C before mediators and raided the above shop along with the informant and mediators and seized number of Pirated VCDs. After retuning to police station registered the case. During the Trial while deposing my evidence the Trial Court Judge has find fault with my investigation procedure for not registering the case when I received information regarding the piracy of CDS. I explained the court that, the information provided by the informant is “hear say” as such I did not register the case. But I could not convince the court. Now the question is, whether my act of making entry in General Diary regarding receipt of “hear say” information and proceeding to the scene of offence and after seizing the incriminating material and then registering case is a defective investigation?

sec 154 crpc. is very clear that you have to treat the information as FIR if it disclose commission of cognizable offence even if it is a oral information therefore the magst. was right ,you having not regd a case can not take resort to search and sezure because the section itself says about search and seizure during investigation

AIR 2005 SC 733

S.165 is during investigation. You have to go by the information. There is no bar to ahearsay. When you get an information if that will attract S.154 Cr.P.C you have to go through that section. About the search and seizure the above ruling will protect the irregularity if any. But the GD entry by you shows your bonafides and fairness. Only for the reason of the non-registration the case will not suffer.

search by police officer-absence of FIR--imp-necessity of recording grounds for necessity of search.he is further required to  records his reasons  that unless the search was made without delay,there was possibility of concelement of material to be searched out.sharda singh vs state of up&ors. 1999 cr l j1880(all)

It    was  a    defective    investigation   because   u   used    sec.165   before   using    sec.154 .

 

It is decided in State of Haryana v. Bajan Lal in 1992CriLJ 527(SC): AIR 1992SC 601.

“If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is made to the police has no option but to register the case on the basics of that information"

If information is only hear say, then SHO should register case only if person in possession of hearsay subscribes his signature to it and mentions the source of his information so that it does not amount to irresponsible rumour. The information must be definite, not vague, authentic, not baseless, gossip or rumour, clearly making out a cognizable case.

In response to the reply posted by  : do not matters does not matter (Guest)

 dear sir, 

thanks for your comments, but i would like to clear that, on questioning by the mag, as to why you have not registered the case on receipt of the information, my answer was that, since the information given by him is "hear say"  i did not register the case immediately, but made a Detailed entry in the General Diary, issued search proceedings U/s 165 Crpc duly following procedure in the presence of mediators, raided the shop, seized the incriminating material, returned to police station and then registered. < Please don’t  jump into conclusion that every one is corrupt>

 any way thenks for you comments

with warm regards

Related 'Criminal Law' Lawyers

S P SRIVAST RAKHI BUDHI R.K Nanda Sandeep Nai Mukesh Rana Advocate Ni Visheshwar V R SHROFF D Bhattacha Jagadishwar Mento Isac Anish Thaku Varun Singh Rajesh Sriv Zulfiqar Al Surendranat kavksatyana JEEVAGAN AD Prakash Yed

Click here to List yourself in Lawyers Directory Learn about