Call Us Now

+91 9606900005 / 04

For Enquiry

legacyiasacademy@gmail.com

Chargesheet: Not Public Document

Context:

Recently, The Supreme Court held that chargesheets are not ‘public documents’ and enabling their free public access violates the provisions of the Criminal Code of Procedure as it compromises the rights of the accused, victim, and the investigation agencies.

Relevance:

GS II: Polity and Governance

Dimensions of the Article:

  1. What is a chargesheet?
  2. Difference between Chargesheet and FIR
  3. Why is a chargesheet not a ‘public document’?

What is a chargesheet?

  • A chargesheet, as defined under Section 173 CrPC, is the final report prepared by a police officer or investigative agencies after completing their investigation of a case.
  • After preparing the chargesheet, the officer-in-charge of the police station forwards it to a Magistrate, who is empowered to take notice of the offences mentioned in it.
  • The chargesheet should contain details of names, the nature of the information, and offences. Whether the accused is under arrest, in custody, or has been released, whether any action was taken against him, are all important questions that the chargesheet answers.
  • Further, when the chargesheet relates to offences for which there is sufficient evidence against the accused, the officer forwards it to the Magistrate, complete with all documents. This forms the basis for the prosecution’s case and the charges to be framed.
  • “The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of the police officer under s. 173(2) of the CrPC,” the apex court held in its 1991 ruling in K Veeraswami vs UOI & Ors.
  • A chargesheet must be filed against the accused within a prescribed period of 60-90 days, otherwise the arrest is illegal and the accused is entitled to bail.

Difference between Chargesheet and FIR

FIR (First Information Report)
  • Not defined in either Indian Penal Code (IPC) or CrPC
  • Finds a place under police regulations/ rules under Section 154 of CrPC, which deals with ‘Information in Cognizable Cases’
  • Filed at the ‘first’ instance’ that the police is informed of a cognizable offense or offence for which one can be arrested without a warrant; such as rape, murder, kidnapping.
  • Does not decide a person’s guilt
  • After filing an FIR, the investigation takes place, if the police have sufficient evidence can the case be forwarded to the Magistrate, otherwise, the accused is released from custody under Section 169 of the CrPC.
  • According to Section 154 (3) of the CrPC, if any person is aggrieved by the refusal of authorities to file FIR, they can send the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, who will either investigate himself or direct it to their subordinate.
Chargesheet
  • Expressly defined under Section 173 of the CrPC
  • Final report filed towards the end of an investigation
  • Complete with evidence and is often used during the trial to prove the offenses the accused is charged with.
  • Filed by the police or law-enforcement/ investigative agency only after they have gathered sufficient evidence against the accused in respect of the offenses mentioned in the FIR, otherwise, a ‘cancellation report’ or ‘untraced report’ can be filed when due to lack of evidence.

Why is a chargesheet not a ‘public document’?

  • The Court held that a chargesheet cannot be made publicly available as it’s not a ‘public document’ under Sections 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act, as argued by the petitioners.
Evidence Act Definition of ‘Public Documents’
  • Section 74 of the Evidence Act defines ‘public documents’ as those which form the acts or records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, and of public offices either legislative, judicial or executive in any part of India, Commonwealth or a foreign country.
  • It also includes public records “kept in any State of private documents”.
Section 76 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 76 of the Evidence Act mandates every public officer having custody over such documents to provide its copy pursuant to a demand and payment of legal fee, accompanied by a certificate of attestation along with the date, seal, name and designation of the officer.
Court’s ruling
  • The Court said that reliance on Sections 74 and 76 was ‘misconceived’ and added, “Documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act can only be said to be public documents, certified copies of which are to be given by the concerned public authority having the custody of such a public document. Copy of chargesheets along with necessary public documents cannot be said to be ‘public documents’ under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.”
  • The Court also clarified that as per Section 75 of the Evidence Act, all documents other than those listed under Section 74’ are private documents.
2016 Supreme Court Ruling
  • The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on a 2016 ruling of the Supreme Court in ‘Youth Bar Association of India vs UOI’, where it directed all police stations in the country to publish copies of FIRs online within 24 hours of registration, except in cases where offenses were of sensitive nature.
  • The Court rejected the reliance on its judgment by saying that the directions given by it in the 2016 ruling only applied to FIRs and could not extend to chargesheets.
  • “This was done so that if the innocent accused are harassed, they are able to get relief from the competent court and are not taken by surprise,” the Court said in reference to its 2016 judgment. The direction was issued in favor of the accused in that case and could not be stretched to the public at large, the Bench added.

-Source: Indian Express


February 2023
MTWTFSS
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728 
Categories