The SHO has statutory authority under section 156 Cr.PC to investigate any cognizable case for which an FIR is lodged At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under section 482 Cr.PC on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction. If the investigation officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station, then FIR can be forwarded to the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime is committed, but this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and or investigate it.

Every Telephonic information about commission cognizable offence irrespective of nature and details of such information cannot be treated as FIR. Whenever FIR is registered against the accused, a copy of it is forwarded to the Court under provisions of the Code; Thus it becomes a Public Document.

It is a legitimate right of any officer to interrogate or arrest any suspect or some credible material but such an arrest must be in accordance with the law and the interrogation does not mean inflicting injuries. It should be in its true sense purposeful, namely, to make the investigation effective. Torturing a person and using third degree methods are of medieval nature and they are barbaric and contrary to law. The Police would be accomplishing behind their closed doors precisely what the demands of our legal order forbid. They must adopt some scientific methods than resorting to physical torture. If the custodians of law themselves indulge in committing crimes then no member of the society is safe and secure. If Police Officers who have to provide security and protection to the citizens indulge in such methods they are creating a sense of insecurity in the minds of the citizens.

An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is know to him or likely to take interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained. The Police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest protections from power must be held to flow from articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly. It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with.

Where the police or the jail authorities have well-grounded basis of drawing a strong inference that a particular prisoner is likely to jump jail or break out of the custody then the said prisoner be produced before the magistrate concerned and a prayer for permission to handcuff the prisoner be made before the said Magistrate save in rate cases of concrete proof regarding proneness of the prisoner to violence, his tendency to escape, he being so dangerous/desperate and the finding that no other practical way of forbidding escape is available, the Magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the prisoner. In all the cases where a person arrested by police is produced before the Magistrate and remanded to judicial or non-judicial custody- is given by the Magistrate the person concerned shall not be handcuffed unless special orders in that respect area obtained from the Magistrate at the time of grant of the remand.

Section 167 is supplementary to Section 57. the investigation should be completed in the first instance within 24 hours; if not the arrested person should be brought by the police before a Magistrate as provided under Section 167. While doing so, the police should also transmit a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case which is meant to afford to the magistrate the necessary information upon which he can take the decision whether the accused should be detained in the custody further or not. Even at this stage the Magistrate can release him on bail if an application is made and if he is satisfied that there are no grounds to remand him to custody if he is satisfied that further remand is necessary then he should act as provided under section 167. The Judicial Magistrate can in the first instance authorize the detention of the accused in either police or judicial custody from time to time but the total period of detention cannot exceed fifteen days in the whole. If the arrested accused is produced before the Executive Magistrate having judicial powers where Judicial Magistrate is not available, the Executive Magistrate is empowered to authorize the detention in such custody either police or judicial only for a week. If the investigation is not completed within the period of ninety days or sixty days as provided under the provision to 167(2) then the accused has to be released on bail.

The Charge Sheet is nothing but a final report of Police officer under section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C The statutory requirement would be complied with of the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the investigation officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report U/s 173 (2), purports to be an opinion of the investigating officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses required by Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the IO. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence.

The confession should be recorded in a free atmosphere in the same language in which the person is examined and as narrated by him. The person from whom a confession has been recorded under section 15 (1) of the Act, should be produced before the Magistrate to whom the confession is required to be sent along with the original statement of confession, written or recorded on mechanical devise without unreasonable delay. The Magistrate should scrupulously record the statement, if any made by the accused so produced and get his signature an in case of any complaint of torture, the person should be directed to be produced for Medical examination. The Police Officer is he is seeking the custody of any person for pre-indictment or pre-trial interrogation from the judicial custody, must file an affidavit sworn by him explaining the reason not only for such custody but also for the delay, if any seeking the police custody.

It is manifest from its bare reading without subjecting to detailed and critical analysis that the case diary is only a record of day-to-day investigation of the investigating officer to ascertain the statement of circumstances ascertained thought the investigation U/s 172 (2), the court is entitled at the trial or enquiry to use the diary not as evidence in the case. But as aid to it in the inquiry or trial. Neither the accused, nor his agent, by operation shall be entitled to call for the diary, not shall he be entitled to use it as evidence merely because of Court referred to it. Only right given there under it that if the Police officer who made the entries in the diary uses it to refresh his memory or if the court uses it for the purpose of contradicting such witness, by operation of section 145 of Evidence Act, it shall be used for the purpose of contradicting such witness i.e. I O or the Court. It is, therefore, clear that unless the I O or the Court uses it either to refresh the memory or contradicting the investigating officer as previous statement under section 162 that too after drawing his attention there to as is enjoined under section 145 of Evidence Act, the entries cannot be used by the accused as evidence.

If in a given case the site plan is prepared by a draftsman – and not by the investigation officer – entries therein regarding the place from where shots were fired or other details derived from other witnesses would be admissible as corroborative evidence.