The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order dismissing the plea of ​​a criminal accused seeking directions to the trial courts to affix his signature or initial on every page of the case log kept by the investigating agencies when produced before it, to prevent any falsification. and manufacturing.

In doing so, the court said that it can only interpret the law and not issue it under the guise of interpretation, when the relevant law does not make such a provision for signing the case log.

A division bank of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind dismissed the appeal challenging an order of the single trial court moved by Mohammed Shiyab, one of the various accused, arrested and jailed in 2022 for the alleged killing of BJP Yuva Morcha member Praveen Nettaru. Shiyab had also been booked under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

The Division Bench said: “Neither the statute nor the Rules anywhere provide for the diary to be signed on every page by the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, it is not possible to add words or such providence or to read such a requirement by providing the language. It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation and legal application that the court would act on the plain words of the statute without adding anything to the language. The addition was to provide the language would be tantamount to legislating, which is not permitted. The court cannot cross the line to pass by creating what is not provided by law. The function of the court ends where the legislative field begins. The task of the court is to interpret the law as it is, and not to issue the law under the guise of interpretation. It is not permitted to provide anything more than what is stated in black and white“.

Background

The trial Court passed orders of remand and in connection with this the case diary was cited which was taken back by the Investigating Officer. The appellant-defendant had filed a brief with the trial court to subpoena the case log. In addition, he had requested to initial the authentication of entries on each page of the diary, which was rejected on November 16, 2022 on the grounds that there was no such provision.

Against this, he approached the single trial court in a writ petition, seeking a direction to the trial court – Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Tribunal for the trial of NIA cases, “to sign or initial each page of the case log registered by the respondent under sections 120B, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, from page no. 1 to the last page and continue this practice until the charge sheet is filed”. It was also prayed that the trial court should follow the same practice in all the cases pending before it.

Rejecting this plea, the single judge said that although the case diary entries maintained under section 172(1) CrPC are to accompany the order of remand, “nowhere does it indicate that the Magistrate must affix his signature at every time an order of remand is made or every time when the case log. is called to the Court”. recurrence then he approached the division bench.

In support of his case, the applicant (petitioner before a single judge) invoked Article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his case, it was necessary to initial every page of the court journal when it was produced before the Court. This practice of initialing every page was not mentioned in the Karnataka Criminal Practice Rules, 1968, but was provided for in the Rules of other states, he said.

Therefore, it was argued that to prevent forgery and fabrication initials of the Investigating Officer on every page were desired and the Court should make it mandatory, he argued.

Meanwhile, counsel for the National Investigation Agency (ANI) opposed the plea saying that the petitioner is seeking an order from the High Court in the nature of legislative exercise when there is no such provision available in the “Statute of the Regulations to support the prayer made. in the petition”.

Finding

Referring to the single judge order, the high court said: “The learned Single Judge has discussed in detail the decisions of the Supreme Court which lay down the principle that it is not the role of the Court to extend the jurisdiction by entering into the legislative task. It has been rightly observed that the Court cannot read anything further when the language of the provision is unambiguous and that the Court cannot redirect or add anything or read additional words into the statute..”

Referring to Section 172 of the CrPC, the division bench noted that Sub-section (2) provides that “police logs may be called for by the Court but the log cannot be used as evidence in the case”.

It can be used “only to assist” the investigation or trial, the bank added. It also noted that Sub-section (3) provides that the accused or his agents are not entitled to demand such logs nor are they entitled to see it.

The high court then said: “Therefore, the police diary is provided not to be treated as part of the evidence but the court takes aid and assistance from it. The section nowhere provides that every page of such journal shall be signed by the Inquiry Officer. The Rules of Practice of the State of Karnataka regarding investigation also do not contain such a provision“.

The High Court also pointed out that a writ of mandate would not lie to do something that is not provided for in a statutory provision. It said the applicable statutory provision “guides the course and the way” of mandamus.

“There must be a positive obligation expressed and available from a statutory provision or supported by a statutory provision to justify issuing a warrant to do an act or to omit to do. Even otherwise, no factoring circumstance could be shown by the petitioner or found to exist to justify granting the prayers made in the petition.“, the bank said.

Finding no error in the order of the single trial court, the high court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Mohammed Shiyab AND the National Investigation Agency

Counsel for the appellant: Advocate Mohammed Tahir

Counsel for the Respondent: SPP P Prasanna Kumar

Reference No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 452

Case no: WRITTEN RECESS NO. 102 OF 2024

Click here to read/download the order