The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Introduction
There
was no uniform law of criminal procedure for the whole of India .For the
guidance of the
Courts
there were separate Acts which were applicable in erstwhile provinces and the
presidency
towns
.The Acts which were applicable in the presidency towns were first consolidated by
the
Criminal
Procedure Supreme Court Act (16 of 1852). The Acts which were applicable in the
provinces
were consolidated by the Criminal Procedure Code (25 of 1861) .Criminal
Procedure
Supreme
Courts Act was replaced by the High Court Criminal Procedure Act (12 of 1865)
and
the
Criminal Procedure Code was replaced by Act 10 of 1872 . A uniform law of
procedure for
the
whole of India was consolidated by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1882 (10
of 1882). It
was
replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898). This Code of 1898
had been
amended
by various amending Acts. In 1955 extensive amendments were made to simplify
procedure
and to speed up trials .The State Governments too made a large number of
amendments
to the Code of 1898 .To make the criminal procedure more comprehensive the Law
Commission
was asked to undertake a detailed examination of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1898
The Commission submitted its report on 19th February, 1968. In the meanwhile Law
Commission
was reconstituted and the reconstituted commission made a detailed study of the
Code
of 1898 and submitted its report in September, 1969 Thereafter a draft Bill (41
of 1970)
was
introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 10th December, 1970 .The Bill was referred to a
Joint
Select
Committee of both the Houses of Parliament Incorporating the recommendations of
the
Joint
Select Committee the Code of Criminal Procedure .Bill was taken up for
consideration by
the
Parliament.
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
1.The
law relating to criminal procedure applicable to all criminal proceedings in
India (except
those
in the States of Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland the Tribal Areas in Assam) is
contained
in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Code has been amended from time to
time by
various
Acts of the Central and State Legislatures. The more important of these were the
amendments
brought about by Central legislation in 1923 and 1955 .The amendments of 1955
were
extensive and were intended to simplify procedures and speed up trials as far as
possible .In
addition,
local amendments were made by State Legislatures of which the most important
were
those
made to bring about separation of the Judiciary from the Executive .Apart from
these
amendments,
the provisions of the Code of 1898 have remained practically unchanged through
these
decades and no attempt was made to have a comprehensive revision of this old
Code till
the
Central Law Commission was set up in 1955.
2.
The first Law Commission presented its Report (the Fourteenth Report) on the
Reform of
Judicial
Administration, both civil and criminal in 1958; it was not concerned with
detailed
scrutiny
of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it did make some
recommendations
in regard to the law of criminal procedure, some of which required
amendments
to the Code. A systematic examination of the Code was subsequently undertaken by
the
Law Commission not only for giving concrete form to the recommendations made in
the
Fourteenth
Report but also with the object of attempting a general revision. The main task
of the
Commission
was to suggest measures to remove anomalies and ambiguities brought to light by
conflicting
decisions of the High Courts or otherwise to consider local variations with a
view to
securing
and maintaining uniformity, to consolidate laws wherever possible and to
suggest
improvements
where necessary Suggestions for improvements received from various sources
were
considered by the Commission A comprehensive report for the revision of the
Code,
namely,
the Forty-first Report, was presented by the Law Commission in September 1969
.This
report
took into consideration the recommendations made in the earlier reports of the
Commission
dealing with specific matters, namely, the Fourteenth Twenty-fifth Thirty-second,
Thirty-third,
Thirty-sixth, Thirty-seventh and Fortieth Reports.
3.
The recommendations of the Commission were examined carefully by the
Government,
keeping
in view among others, the following basic considerations:—
(i)
an accused person should get a fair trial in accordance with the accepted
principles of
natural
justice;
(ii)
every effort should be made to avoid delay in investigation and trial which is
harmful
not
only to the individuals involved but also to society; and
(iii)
the procedure should not be complicated and should, to the utmost extent
possible,
ensure
fair deal to the poorer sections of the community.
The
occasion has been availed of to consider and adopt where appropriate
suggestions
received
from other quarters, based on practical experience of investigation and the
working of
criminal
Courts.
4. One of the main recommendations of the Commission is to provide for the
separation of the
Judiciary
from the Executive on an all India basis in order to achieve uniformity in this
matter To
secure
this, the Bill seeks to provide for a new set up of criminal Courts In addition
to ensuring
fair
deal to the accused, separation as provided for in the Bill would ensure
improvement in the
quality
and speed of disposal as all Judicial Magistrates would be legally qualified
and trained
persons
working under close supervision of the High Court.
5.
Some of the more important changes proposed to be made with a view to speeding
up the
disposal
of criminal cases are—
(a)
the preliminary inquiry which precedes the trial by a Court of Session,
otherwise
known as committal proceedings, is being abolished as it does not serve any
useful
purpose
and has been the cause of considerable delay in the trial of offences;
(b)
provision is being made to enable adoption of the summons procedure for the
trial of offences
punishable
with imprisonment up to two years instead of up to one year as at present; this
would
enable
a larger number of cases being disposed of expeditiously;
(c)
the scope of summary trials is being widened by including offences punishable
with
imprisonment
up to one year instead of six months as at present; summons procedure will be
adopted
for all summary trials;
(d)
the powers of revision against interlocutory orders are being taken away, as it
has been found
to
be one of the main contributing factors in the delay of disposal of criminal
cases;
(e)
the provision for compulsory stoppage of proceedings by a subordinate Court on
the mere
intimation
from a party of his intention to move a higher Court for transfer of the case
is being
omitted
and a further provision is being made to the effect that the Court hearing the
transfer
application
shall not stay proceedings unless it is necessary to do so in the interest of
justice;
(f)
when adjournments are granted at the instance of either party, the Court is
being empowered
to
order costs to be paid by the party obtaining the adjournments to the other
party;
(g)
provision is being made for the service of summons by registered post in certain
cases;
(h)
in petty cases, the accused is being enabled to plead guilty by post and to
remit the fine
specified
in the summons;
(i)
if a Court of appeal or revision discovers that any error, omission or
irregularity in respect of
a
charge has occasioned failure of justice it need not necessarily order retrial;
(j)
the facility of part-heard cases being continued by successors-in-office now
available in
respect
of Courts of Magistrates is being extended to Courts of Session.
In
addition to the above specific measures, the Commission's recommendations which
are
intended
to resolve conflicts of decisions on various matters or to remove ambiguities
have been
given
effect to and these provisions may, by themselves, help in reducing the time
taken in
litigation.
6. Some of the more important changes intended to provide relief to the proper
sections of the
community
are—
(a)
provisions have been made for giving legal aid to an indigent accused in cases
triable by a
Court
of Session; the State Government may extend this facility to other categories
of cases;
(b)
the Court has been empowered to order payment of compensation by the accused to
the
victims
of crimes, to a larger extent than is now permissible under the Code;
(c)
when a Commission is issued for the examination of a witness for the
prosecution, the cost
incurred
by the defence including pleader's fees may be ordered to be paid by the
prosecution;
(d)
the accused will be given an opportunity to make representation against the
punishment
before
it is imposed.
In
addition to these specific provisions, the steps taken to reduce delays would
themselves
automatically
benefit the poorer sections, as it is they who particularly suffer by the
prolongation
of
criminal cases.
7
. The notes on clauses explain the more important provisions of the Bill.
Act 2 of 1974
The
Code of Criminal Procedure Bill having been passed by both the Houses of
Parliament
received
the assent of the President on 25th January, 1974 It came into force on the 1st
day of
April,
1974 as THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (2 of 1974).
List of Amending Acts
1.
The Repealing and Amending Act, 1974 (56 of 1974).
2.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1978 (45 of 1978).
3.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1980 (63 of 1980).
4.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983 (43 of 1983).
5.
The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (46 of 1983).
6.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1988 (32 of 1988).
7.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1990 (10 of 1990).
8.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991).
9.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1993 (40 of 1993).
10.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1993 (42 of 1993).
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
(2
of 1974)
[25th January, 1974
An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Criminal
Procedure
Be
it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-fourth Year of the Republic of India as
follows.
