Definitions Of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :
Section – 2 . In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,—
| (a) | “bailable offence” means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule, or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force ; and “non-bailable offence” means any other offence ; | |
| (b) | “charge” includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one ; | |
| (c) | “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant ; | |
| (d) | “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. | |
| Explanation : A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint ; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant ; | ||
| (e) | “High Court” means,— |
| (i) | in relation to any State, the High Court for that State ; | |
| (ii) | in relation to a Union territory to which the jurisdiction of the High Court for a State has been extended by law, that High Court ; | |
| (iii) | in relation to any other Union territory, the highest Court of criminal appeal for that territory other than the Supreme Court of India ; |
COMMENTS
COMPLAINT [SEC. 2(d)]
1898 Code vs. 1973 Code – According to the definition of “complaint” in section 4(h) of the old Code, a complaint did not include a report of a police officer.
The Code also used different expressions relating to reports of police officers as follows :
| a. | “Police report” [Ss. 133(i), 145(i), 147, etc.]. | |
| b. | “Report of a police officer” [Ss. 4(i)(h), 114, etc.]. | |
| c. | “Report in writing made by any police officer” [S. 190(i)(b)]. | |
| d. | “Report” simpliciter [Ss. 62, 174(i)]. |
Certain questions arose as to the meaning of some of these expressions. In view of the conflicting decisions and uncertainty prevailing in this behalf, the Law Commission recommended suitable changes in the definition of “complaint” to clarify “that reports made by the police on an unauthorised investigation of non-cognizable cases are ‘complaint'”. This definition incorporates these changes.
The Explanation clarifies the intention that the police report will be deemed to be a complaint only if the offence is discovered, after investigation by the police to be a non-cognizable one. It has further been clarified that in such a case the police officer who makes the report shall be deemed to be the complainant.
Maintenance application not a complaint – One of the ingredients of a complaint is that it should contain an allegation of the commission of offence. An application under section 125 for maintenance does not contain any allegation of the commission of any offence. Hence, such an application cannot be treated as a “complaint” as defined in clause (d) of section 2—Jugtambalal J. Gandhi v. State of Gujarat 1975-76, Mah. Cr. Reporter, 437.
INQUIRY [SEC. 2(g)]
1898 Code vs. 1973 Code – In the definition of “inquiry” in the old Code, the verb used was “includes”. In the definition in the new Code, the word used is “means”. This change indicates that the definition in the new Code has been made exhaustive rather than illustrative or inclusive—State of Maharashtra v. Chandrashekhar Nilkanth 1975, Mah. L.J. 607.
Proceedings before a Magistrate under section 170/207 are ‘inquiry’ – If under section 207, the Magistrate is performing a judicial function of ascertaining whether copies have been supplied or not, it would undoubtedly be an “inquiry” for the purpose of satisfying himself that section 207 has been complied with in letter and spirit. That satisfaction has to be judicial satisfaction. It is not a trial but something other than a trial and being judicial function, it would necessarily be an inquiry. The making of an order committing the accused to the Court of Session will equally be a stage in the inquiry and the inquiry culminates in making the order of commitment. Thus, from the time the accused appears or is produced before the Magistrate with the police report under section 170 and the Magistrate proceeds to enquire whether section 207 has been complied with and then proceeds to commit the accused to the Court of Session, the proceeding before the Magistrate would be an “inquiry” as contemplated by section 2(g)—State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman AIR 1983 SC 439.
Proceedings under section 209 are not ‘inquiry’ – Proceedings under section 209 do not fall squarely within the ambit of ‘inquiry’ as defined in section 2(g)—Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 1931.
INVESTIGATION [SEC. 2(h)]
‘Investigation’, connotation of – ‘Investigation’ cannot be limited only to police investigation but, on the other hand, the said word has wider connotation and is flexible so as to include the investigation carried on by any agency whether he be a police officer or empowered or authorised officer or a person, not being a police officer, under the direction of a Magistrate to make an investigation vested with the power of investigation—Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan AIR 1994 SC 1775.
LOCAL JURISDICTION [SEC. 2(j)]
1898 Code vs. 1973 Code – This definition has been added with a view to shortening the language used in some sections of the old Code. The old Code used the expression “a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offence was committed” in sections 177 to 183. This has been shortened and simplified as “a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed”, in the new definition.
Amendment Act, 1978 – Originally, the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under the new definition was confined to a district only. This created difficulty in enabling the appointment of Magistrate with jurisdiction beyond a district, such as when Special Judicial Magistrates had to be appointed to try certain categories of cases or cases involving inter-district ramifications. The definition “local jurisdiction” has, therefore, been amended by the Amendment Act, 1978 to empower the State Government to define the local jurisdiction as extending to the whole of the State or to any part thereof where necessary as for instance in cases of Special Courts or Special Judicial Magistrates.
METROPOLITAN AREA [SEC. 2(k)]
The definition is consequent upon the replacement of presidency towns by metropolitan areas and the appointment of Metropolitan Magistrates in those areas [sections 8 and 16 to 19 of the new Code].
NON-COGNIZABLE OFFENCES [SEC. 2(l)]
The definition is intended to emphasise that a police officer has no authority to arrest a person without warrant in a non-cognizable case.
PLACE [SEC. 2(p)]
1898 Code vs. 1973 Code – The definition of “place” has been extended to include a vehicle in order to remove a doubt expressed by the Supreme Court in Bhagwanbhai Dulabhai Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra [1963] 3 SCR 386, that a motor vehicle was not a “place” within the meaning of sections 102 and 103 of the (old) Code, so that the formalities laid down by those sections need not be observed when a motor vehicle was to be searched. Incidentally, the new definition also removes a lacuna in the old definition because, as a motor vehicle was not considered a “place”, the power of search was not considered to cover power to search a motor vehicle.
PLEADER [SEC. 2(q)]
1898 Code vs. 1973 Code – The old definition of “pleader” enumerated various classes of practitioners of law who could come within that definition. The new definition is simple.
A private person – Permission to plead – A pleader, by definition, includes any person other than one authorised by law to practise in a court if he is appointed with the permission of the court, to act in a particular proceeding. A private person, who is not an advocate, has no right to barge into court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the court, for which the motion must come from the party himself. It is open to the court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion. In fact, the court may, even after grant of permission, withdraw it half way through if the representative proves himself reprehensible. The antecedents, the relationship, the reasons for requisitioning, the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission—Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma AIR 1978 SC 1019.
POLICE REPORT [SEC. 2(r)]
The expression ‘police report’ has been defined consequent upon the new modified definition of ‘complaint’ [sec. 2(d)].
WARRANT CASE [SEC. 2(x)]
1898 Code vs. 1973 Code – The definition secures that offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years could be tried by the summons-case procedure. In the old Code the limit was one year. The Law Commission had recommended that for securing expeditious disposal of a larger number of cases, particularly those under special laws, summons-case procedure should be prescribed for offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years instead of one year as it was then. However, the limit has been raised to two years only.