Amended Cr.P.C Bill- A National Debate

The eight Bills passed by Lok Sabha on December 23 without a debate in 17 minutes flat included a radically revamped Criminal Procedure Code, which divests the police of the usual arrest powers in all cases where the maximum possible sentence is seven years or less. The new Criminal Procedure Code, which divests police of arrest powers in cases where maximum sentence is upto seven years, becomes law with President Pratibha Patil finally giving her assent this month. The presidential assent, which came nearly three weeks after the bill was sent to her after getting it passed from Parliament, has now paved the way for the government to notify it. This amendment is expected to improve the human rights record of India and greatly reduce the corruption and extortion in police stations. This will also reduce false complaints and will stop people using police for settling personal and political scores and vendettas.

Instead of putting the accused behind the bars in cases including attempt to commit culpable homicide (Section 308 IPC); voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Section 325); cheating (Section 420); outraging a woman’s modesty (Section 354); death caused by negligence (Section 304A); and assaulting the President (Section 124) - the police will now have to issue a ‘notice of appearance’ to the individual concerned who will be expected to ‘cooperate’ with the investigation. Only if the accused fails to respond to the ‘notice of appearance’ can the police have recourse to arrest- by which time the accused would get as far as possible out of the reach of the arms of the law.

The Bill incorporates the recommendations of the Law Commission, the Justice Malimath Committee report and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court from time to time to prevent overcrowding of jails with undertrials. The amended Section 41 of the Cr.PC. says: “No person concerned in a non-cognisable offence or against whom a complaint has been made or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having so concerned shall be arrested except under a warrant or order of a magistrate.” However, arrest can be made without a warrant, after recording the reasons in writing, if the police officer is satisfied that it is necessary for proper probe, or to prevent the person from committing any further offence or making any inducement, threat or promise to anyone acquainted with the facts of the case. The amended law says a police officer who is making an arrest will have to bear his identification badge or tag. Besides, a memorandum of arrest shall be prepared, witnessed and countersigned. The person arrested shall be told that he has the right to inform a relative or friend. It mandates the State government to establish police control rooms at the district and State levels and display on noticeboards kept outside the control rooms the names and addresses of the persons arrested, and the names and designations of the police officers who made the arrests. The law provides for payment of compensation to victims for illegal arrest and police harassment.

However, the Supreme Court Bar Association is opposed to the amendments made in the Cr.P.C giving discretionary powers to police not to arrest a person who is involved in an offence having maximum sentence of seven years. There is widespread belief among lawyers that these amendments would give a free hand to frauds, unscrupulous elements, extortionists, those demanding dowry and other offenders without any fear of being arrested, leaving law-abiding citizens at the mercy of anti-social elements, police and politicians with criminal track records.

Allaying those concerns, home minister P Chidambaram wrote to all CMs explaining why it was necessary to bring such changes in the Cr.P.C. Referring to Section 41 of the Act, Chidambaram said in his letter, "This provision was severely criticised as capable of being misused and, in fact, was being misused." He advised CMs to refer to reports of the Law Commission and the Malimath Committee and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in D K Basu case which laid down guidelines for effecting arrest. Advising CMs to see the amendments in the light of those suggestions and guidelines, Chidambaram, however, assured them that the government was ready to revisit the provisions, if it became necessary, in the next session of Parliament. Moreover, the amended bill will also help ease the huge logjam of pending cases in the courts and the stifling congestion in jails and prisons. It should significantly reduce prison populations and costs.
Tissya Mandal, member SACJ 2009-10