Police Powers Of Investigation
1. Overview: Police Powers of Investigation
The police are empowered to investigate crimes, collect evidence, and prevent offences, but their powers are not absolute and are subject to statutory and constitutional limitations.
Key Legal Framework in India
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 – primary legislation governing police powers.
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 – defines offences.
Constitution of India – particularly Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) limits arbitrary action.
Special laws – NDPS Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, IT Act, etc.
Police Powers in Investigation
Registration of FIR (First Information Report) – CrPC Section 154
Search and seizure – Sections 165, 166 CrPC; Search warrants under Sections 91–102 CrPC
Arrest – Sections 41–60 CrPC
Interrogation and recording statements – Sections 161, 162 CrPC
Investigation of cognizable and non-cognizable offences – Sections 156–157 CrPC
Seizure of electronic evidence – IT Act Sections 65, 66
Limitations on Police Powers
Cannot violate constitutional rights (Article 20 – protection against self-incrimination; Article 21 – liberty).
Must follow due process in arrests, searches, and seizures.
Cannot act arbitrarily; evidence collected illegally may be inadmissible.
2. Key Case Laws
Case 1: Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
Facts:
Accused was arrested without proper justification.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
CrPC Sections 41–60
Article 21 (Right to liberty)
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that arrest is not an automatic consequence of FIR.
Police must record reasons and ensure that arrest is necessary.
Guidelines on judicial oversight and preventive detention were clarified.
Significance:
Landmark case on restraining arbitrary police power of arrest.
Case 2: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts:
Case of custodial death.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Article 21 (Right to life)
Judgment:
Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines for arrests and detention:
Police officer must carry identity card.
Arrest memo to be prepared in duplicate.
Family of arrested person must be informed within 24 hours.
Medical examination of detainee mandatory.
Significance:
Reinforced accountability in police investigations and protection against custodial violence.
Case 3: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999)
Facts:
Investigating officers conducted search without proper authorization and seized personal property.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
CrPC Sections 165, 166 (Search and seizure)
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that police must have reasonable grounds and follow proper procedure during searches.
Illegally seized items are inadmissible in court.
Significance:
Clarifies limits on discretionary search powers.
Case 4: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts:
Investigation involved using narcoanalysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Article 20(3) – Protection against self-incrimination
Article 21 – Right to privacy
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that invasive tests without consent are unconstitutional.
Statements obtained through these methods are inadmissible as evidence.
Significance:
Strikes balance between investigative techniques and fundamental rights.
Case 5: Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013)
Facts:
Delay in registration of FIR in a case of alleged sexual harassment.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
CrPC Section 154
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that registration of FIR is mandatory for cognizable offences.
Police cannot refuse registration; refusal violates fundamental rights.
Significance:
Strengthened accountability in initiating investigations.
Case 6: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Privacy & Digital Investigation
Facts:
Involved collection of digital and personal data by authorities.
Judgment:
Supreme Court declared right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Police investigations involving data must respect privacy and follow due procedure.
Significance:
Critical for digital forensics and cyber investigations.
Case 7: Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, Bihar (1979)
Facts:
Mass arrests of undertrial prisoners without trial.
Judgment:
Supreme Court emphasized speedy investigation and trial as part of Article 21.
Police negligence in investigation can violate right to life and liberty.
Significance:
Landmark case linking investigation delays to fundamental rights.
3. Key Principles from Case Laws
Arrest and Detention: Must be justified, documented, and limited to necessary circumstances.
Search and Seizure: Require reasonable suspicion and adherence to procedural safeguards.
Custodial Protection: Police must follow strict guidelines to prevent abuse (D.K. Basu).
Evidence Collection: Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible; consent is crucial in forensic tests.
Mandatory FIR Registration: For cognizable offences, police cannot refuse to register complaints.
Respect for Privacy: Modern investigations must align with digital rights and privacy laws.
4. Challenges in Police Investigation
Abuse of discretionary powers: Arbitrary arrests or unlawful detention.
Delayed registration of FIRs: Leads to evidence loss.
Custodial violence: Despite D.K. Basu guidelines, still prevalent.
Digital crime investigation: Requires adherence to privacy laws and expertise.
Coordination: Multi-jurisdictional and cybercrimes need inter-agency cooperation.
5. Conclusion
Police powers of investigation are broad but constrained by constitutional and statutory safeguards. Cases like Joginder Kumar, D.K. Basu, Lalita Kumari, and Selvi demonstrate that:
Arbitrary action is prohibited.
Due process and documentation are essential.
Fundamental rights guide investigation procedures.
Judicial oversight ensures accountability and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments