investigation

Preliminary Chargesheet And Grant Of Default Bail: Untangling The Web

OVERVIEW

The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC “),titled “Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours”, provides that an accused shall be entitled to “default bail” if the investigation is not complete within 60 (sixty) or 90 (ninety) days – depending on the prescribed punishment for the offence. However, if a chargesheet is filed in this duration, then default bail cannot be granted.Continue Reading Preliminary Chargesheet And Grant Of Default Bail: Untangling The Web

Tests “Public Servants” must pass to claim protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and is there a silver lining?

The Dilemma:

If an investigating authority intends to investigate a public servant[1], the authority has to mandatorily secure appropriate sanction from a competent authority[2] to even begin the investigation. Particularly, when the allegations pertain to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), the investigating authority must secure the sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), from the competent authority and when the allegations pertain to offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), sanction must be secured under Section 19 of the PC Act. Often, the alleged act under investigation attracts punishment or penalty under both IPC and PC Act.Continue Reading Tests “Public Servants” must pass to claim protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and is there a silver lining?

No more parallel investigations on a company’s ‘misadventures’? - Delhi High Court affirms SFIO’s exclusive jurisdiction

In the matter of Ashish Bhalla vs. State and Another[1](“Judgment”), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”) has recently ruled that once an investigation by the SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) has been initiated, a parallel investigation by a separate investigating agency into the affairs of the company is not permissible, considering the bar under Section 212 of the 2013 Act (“Section 212”). While the Madras High Court in the matter of Ravi Parthasarathy and Others vs. State of Another[2] had made similar observations to sub-clause (2) of Section 212, its application had not been sufficiently visible.Continue Reading No more parallel investigations on a company’s ‘misadventures’? –  Delhi High Court affirms SFIO’s exclusive jurisdiction