Is “De novo” or   “fresh” investigation is a remedy for defective investigation?


The Honourable Andhra Pradesh high court has recently while disposing a writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation has spotted the investigating and prosecuting agencies with regard to their failure of discharging duties.

The Lordships in the said writ petition i.e., in Prof Rama shankarnarayan Vs. State of AP (Ayesha meera case)[1] with distresses held “the investigating officials and the prosecutors involved in presenting this case have miserably failed in discharging their duties. They have been instrumental in denying served the cause of justice. The misery of the family of the victim has remained undressed”. Further the Court has ordered to do fresh investigation in this case. These words are not new for the investigating and prosecuting agency. In many cases THE Apex court has expressed their affliction towards the defective investigation.

“   it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal.   If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded[2]

“if any on culmination criminal case in acquittal : the concerned investigating officer responsible for such acquittal must necessary be identified . every officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse by appropriate departmental action.[3]



“Criminal trials should not be made casualty not for such lapses in the investigation or prosecution” [4]

“The erring investigating officers must suffer the consequences of their laches by appropriate departmental action” [5] “We have been coming across various cases where while the investigation and prosecuting agency are not taking effective steps to ensure conviction of offenders “[ Mukkupogula Lavanya Vs. State of Telangana[6]   the same view has been expressed in Rajiv Singh Vs. State of Bihar[7]

As seen from the above catena of findings by the Lordships it is necessary to examine the scope of investigation and affects of faulty or defective investigation and find the remedies of defective investigation at the anvil of precedents.

“ Investigation’’  as defined in section 2 (h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 includes all proceedings under this code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person ( other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf .

“an investigation means search for material and facts in order to find whether or not an offence has been committed[8].

“the word “investigation “ is to discover and collect the evidence to prove the charge as a fact or disproved [9].

The word “investigation” is not defined but in the context it means no more than the process of collection of evidence or the gathering of material. It is not necessary that it should commence with the communication of an accusation to the person whose affairs are to be investigated. That may follow later[10].

The defective investigation means an investigation leads many latches and lacunas which may quietly resulted acquittal of offender. The defects may to oversight or intentional but ultimate sufferer is victim so also the society. In addition to this the investigating officers has no any legal knowledge which is very essential for collecting correct  and admissible evidence and avoiding the unwanted  and inadmissible evidence , non co operation from the public, non availability of clues team in every station, many of the cases registering are in civil  in nature, delay in filing final report improper maintenance of case diaries, delay in expert opinions, witnesses turns hostile, uncontrollable political interference in investigation, police department has preoccupied with numerous duties viz.,  bandobasth, traffic,  patrolling etc., due to all these factors the investigators are not doing their duties properly.

The Apex court in many occasions cured the defects made in investigation with the strength of other cogent established evidence on record in many cases. Some of the cases are as follows;

“it is settled law that mere latches on the part of investigator itself cannot be a ground for acquitting the accused. If that is the basis then every criminal case will depend upon the will and design of the investigating officer. The courts have to independently deal with the case and should arrive at a just conclusion beyond reasonable doubt basing on the evidence on record[11]”

“It is now well- settled that any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case[12]

“To what extent a faulty investigation is damaging to the prosecution the matter has to be seen a whole [13]


“If the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or

Omission on the part of the I.O cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful’’ [14]

Apart from the above findings the Court in various occasions directs the investigating agency to do further investigation or in rare cases directs fresh investigation when the court satisfies that there has been gross injustice and sheer negligence due to intentional lapses in investigation. There are certain cases in which the Courts has issued direction to do further investigation.

Magistrate may direct further investigation under Sec 156(3) and require Police to make report as per Sec 173(8) where a Final Report is placed before him under Sec 173 (2) (AIR 1968 SC 117; AIR 1980 SC 1883 / AIR 1955 SC 196) .Also, further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. When defective investigation comes into light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation if circumstances so permitted. It would be ordinarily be desirable that Police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial. The right of Police , even after submission of a report u/s (173(2) Cr. P.C , is not exhausted , and the Police can exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information comes into light( Ram Lal Narang V. State of Delhi AIR 1979 SC 1791; Hasanbai Valibhai Quresi V. State of Gujarat , AIR 2004 SC 2078; Satish Tandurang Jagtap V. Statae of Maharastra 1995 Cr. LJ 1509 AT 1510 Bom).

There is a vivid difference in between further and fresh investigation. In further investigation the court wants of evidence something more from the evidence collected by the investigator. But in case of fresh or de novo investigation the


court completely dissatisfies the evidence on record collected by the investigating officer and order to re investigate or start afresh investigation.

The Apex court  while delivering judgment in Ram Saran Vashey Vs. State of UP (2016) 2 SCC 190 (CRL)  has held that not only at the instance of police , even at the instance of de facto complainant further investigation under section 173(8) CRPC can be undertaken by the police to find out the truth of the matter. But the sub ordinate court is not competent to direct fresh, new, de novo investigation which is entirely different from the further investigation.

“Be it noted here that the constitutional courts can direct for further investigation or investigation by some other investigating agency. The purpose is, there has to be fair investigation and a fair trial. The fair trial may be may be quite difficult unless there is a fair investigation. The power to order fresh de novo or re investigation being vested with the constitutional courts the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which it meant to ensure a fair and just investigation”. [15]

“if the investigation is neither effective nor  purposeful nor objective nor fair , it would be necessary to order further investigation or re investigation as the case may be to discover the truth so as to prevent miscarriage of the justice’’.[16]

As seen from the above findings the constitutional Courts in order to ensure the fair trial and find the truth has power to direct the re investigation or de novo investigation. Apart from this power of constitutional courts for direction of re investigation there are some other ways to rectify the defects of the investigation like the prosecutor in charge of the Case may invoke certain provision of law to produce the evidence viz., filing petitions under section 311 , 242(3), 319, 216 CRPC before the Court to fill the intentional or mistakes of the investigator in the case.


1. W.P. (PIL) NO. 186 OF 2017
2. . C. Muniappan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0655/2010 :[ (2010) 9 SCC 567]
3.  [State of Gujrath Vs. Kishanbhai etc., Supreme Court [2014 STPL 15 SC]
4. Ajay Kumar singh Vs. The Flag officer commanding in cheif & others [2016 CRIMES (SC) 212 ]
5. Annepu Prasad Rao Vs. State of AP APHC dated 07-0902017

6. 2017 (1) ALD CRL 228 AP

7.  Supreme Court dated 16-12-2015 and  Sunil  Kundu Vs. State of Jharkhand  [(2013) 4 SCC 422]

8. Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan  [AIR 1994 SC 1775]

9. Krishna Swamy Vs. Union of India [1992 (4)SCC 605 ]

10. Liberty oil Mills Vs. Union of India  [(1984) 3 SCC 465 ]


11. Krishne Gowda & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka [2017 (2) ALD (Crl) 42 ]


12. Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana [ AIR 1999 SC 3717 ]


13. Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of Gujarat [ AIR 2002 SC 1937]


14. Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh, [AIR 2003 SC 1164] Sambu Das vs. State of Assam [ AIR 2010 SC 3300 ]

15. Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana [Supreme court dated 29-01-2016]


16. Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India [ Supreme court dated 22 -01-2016 )

An approach of Supreme Court in Accident Cases


K.Maheswari, APP , MYD

The Supreme Court has recently animadverted about the rapid growth in accident cases vice versa inadequacy of penal system in our country. This is not the first occasion to hike up the present issue; the Supreme Court has in several occasions blow the legislature to gear up equivalent penal provisions to reduce accidents.

‘’Accident” though not defined in IPC but penal provision relating to accident in the Code the dominant ingredients are ‘’rashness’’ and ‘’negligence’’.

As Austin says “in case of negligence, a party performs not an act which he is obliged he breaks a positive duty ‘’.

Clark says ‘’ negligence is the omission to take such care as under circumstances it is the legal duty of a person to take’’.

The result of negligent and rashness act gobbling the whole life of human beings and as well as animals exhausted the healthy lives of human beings into hibernation. The crime detection agency, preventive agency prosecuting agency and judicial systems are debilitated with the frailty statutes.

Lord ships of Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi (1)expressed their affliction towards coetaneous inadequate laws as “Law can never be enforced unless fear supports them’’ further added ‘’ In a motor accident, when a number of people sustain injuries and a death occurs, it creates a stir in the society; sense of fear prevails all around. The negligence of one shatters the tranquillity of the Collective. When such an accident occurs, it has the effect potentiality of making victims in many a layer and creating a concavity in the social fabric. The agony and anguish of the affected persons, both direct and vicarious, can have nightmarish effect. It has its impact on the society and the impact is felt more when accidents take place quite often because of rash driving by drunken, negligent or, for that matter, adventurous drivers who have, in a way, no concern for others. Be it noted, grant of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a different sphere altogether. Grant of compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC with a direction that the same should be paid to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused has been sentenced has a different contour and the same is not to be regarded as a substitute in all circumstances for adequate sentence’’.
In a major step towards curbing road accidents, a Supreme Court has held in Rajaseekaran Vs. Union of India and others (2) ‘’ Road traffic accidents, therefore, have the potential of being one of the largest challenges to orderly human existence necessitating immediate and urgent intervention’’ while delivering judgement it appointed a committee headed by J. K.S. Radhakrishnan to monitor the measurements taken by the central and state governments to control accidents and to implement road safety laws .

The Court has to adopt another parameter, i.e., ‘reasonable care’ in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The other principle that is pressed in aid by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes – one that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the opposite party is responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in cases where the claimant is able to prove the accident but cannot prove how the accident occurred. The courts have also applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where no direct evidence was brought on record ( Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan( 3)

Let us peruse the relevant penal provisions in existed Laws in our country. There are only three statutes which deal with accidents. Those are mentioned below

(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 279, 304A, 336, 337, 338, IPC are deal with cases of road accidents AS FOLLOWS

Section 279: Rash driving or riding on a public way.—Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 304: Causing death by negligence.—whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.]

Section 336: Act endangering life or personal safety of others. “Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.”

Section 337: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. “Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

Section 338: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. “Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

(ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Section 179: Disobedience to orders of the competent authority, obstruction to discharge of official duty or refusal of information to the authority concerned can result in fine up to Rs. 500/.

Section 180: If a owner permits any unauthorised person to drive the vehicle without driving licence, the owner is liable for imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 1,000/or both.

Section 181: Driving without valid and proper driving licence can result in imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 500/or both.

Section 182: If a person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence either drives a motor vehicle or applies for or obtains a driving licence withholding the information regarding disqualification , the person can be imprisoned upto 3 months or punished with fine upto Rs. 500/or with both.

Section 182(a): Whoever alters the construction of the vehicle without prior approval of the competent authority shall be punishable with fine of Rs. 1,000/for the first offence and with a fine of Rs. 5,000/for any subsequent offence.

Section 183: i) If a driver of a motor vehicle contravenes the speed limit, he/she shall be punishable with fine up to Rs. 400/for the first offence and Rs. 500/for the subsequent offence.

ii) If the owner causes the driver to contravene the speed limit, he/she shall be punishable with fine up to Rs. 300/for the first offence and Rs. 500/for subsequent offence.

Section 184: Whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both. The driver can be arrested on the spot.

Section 185: Punishment for drunken driving is imprisonment up to 2 years or fine up to Rs. 3,000/-or both. The driver can be arrested on the spot.

Section 186: If a person drives a vehicle when mentally or physically unfit to drive, he/she shall be punishable for the first offence with fine up to Rs. 200/-and Rs. 500/-for subsequent offence.

Section 187: If a driver or a owner fails to report involvement of his/her vehicle in an accident and give the required information to the Police Officer concerned, he/she shall be punishable with imprisonment up to 3 months or fine up to Rs. 500/-or both in addition to the punishment for the accident, in case convicted. For the subsequent offence under this section, the imprisonment can be up to 6 months and fine amount up to Rs. 1,000/

Section 188: Whoever abets the commission of offence under Section 184, 185 and 186 shall be punishable for the same punishment as the accused himself / herself.

Section 189: Whoever without the written consent of the State Government permits or takes part in a race or trial of speed of any kind between motor vehicles in any public place shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.

Section 190: Punishment for violation of the standards prescribed in relation to road safety, control of noise and air pollution is fine amount up to Rs.1000/for the first offence and Rs. 2000/for the subsequent offence.

Section 192: Using a vehicle without registration can result in minimum fine amount of Rs. 2000/and maximum up to Rs. 5000/. For subsequent offence, the fine amount can be up to Rs. 10,000/with a minimum of Rs. 5000/-

The punishment is not applicable for vehicles used in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injuries or for the transportation of food or material to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose.

Section 192(a): Using vehicle in contravention of permit condition can result in fine up to Rs. 5000/but not less than Rs. 2000/for the first offence and imprisonment upto 1 year but not less than 3 months or with fine amount upto Rs. 10,000/but not less than Rs. 5000/or both for the subsequent offence.

Section 194: Driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight can result with a punishment of Rs. 2000/and an additional amount of Rs. 1,000/per tonne of excess load together with the liability to pay charges of offloading the excess load.

Section 196: Driving uninsured vehicle can result in punishment in imprisonment upto 3 months or fine up to Rs. 1000/or both.

Section 197: Whoever takes or drives away any motor vehicle without having either the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.

Section 201: Whoever keeps a disabled vehicle on any public place in such a manner so as to cause impediment to the free flow of traffic, shall be liable for penalty up to fifty rupees per hour so long as it remains in that position.
(iii) The National Highways Act, 1956

Section 8B: Punishment for mischief by injury to national highway.—Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any national highway referred to in sub-section (1) of section 8A impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with a fine, or with both.

Though the above laws might not meet the ends to meet the ends of justice in disposing the accident cases, the Apex Court being guardian of fundamental rights of citizens of India having the power of interpretation has emerged the community service, reformative and rehabilitation approach. In State Tr.P.S.Lodhi Colony,New … vs Sanjeev Nanda (4) para 60 “Convicts in various countries, now, voluntarily come forward to serve the community, especially in crimes relating to motor vehicles. Graver the crime greater the sentence. But, serving the society actually is not a punishment in the real sense where the convicts pay back to the community which he owes. Conduct of the convicts will not only be appreciated by the community, it will also give a lot of solace to him, especially in a case where because of one’s action and inaction, human lives have been lost. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where six human lives were lost, we feel, to adopt this method would be good for the society rather than incarcerating the convict further in jail. Further sentence of fine also would compensate at least some of the victims of such road accidents who have died, especially in hit and run cases where the owner or driver cannot be traced.

The Supreme Court while disposing Public Interest litigation in NGO Save Life Foundation on 30-3-2016 has issued guidelines as to avoid harassment by police against good Samaritans in order to encourage them in protecting the accident victims. In view of the above decisions and guidelines if the Apex Court, the central govt has brought drastic changes in MV act by acrid penal provisions in the year 2016.


1. State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi ( SC Dated 30-3-2015 )

2. WP 295/ 2012 Dated 22-4-2014

3. CRL.APPEAL NO 7838 of 2009 Dated 16-8-2016

4. CRL.APPEAL NO 1168 / 2012 Dated 3-08-2012



“Arrest” and its scope in contemporary Indian criminal justice system

Arrest The emerging trends in the criminal justice system emphasize the need to speedy trail. Since our Constitution envisaged the spirit of fundamental rights to its citizens the Right of life and personal liberty

Article 21 of the Indian constitution read as “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal except according to procedure established by law”. However in spite of the constitutional and statutory provisions are aimed at safe guarding the personal liberty and life of a citizen, growing incidents of torture and deaths in police custody has been a disturbing factor. Experience shows that worst violations of human rights take place during the course of investigation….custodial death in perhaps one of the worst crime in a civilized society governed by the rule of law”{1}

Speedy trial thus an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. {2}In Kadra Pahadiya Vs. state of Bihar {3} it was held that several trials were languishing in jail for several years without their trial having made any progress. The Supreme court commented “it is a crying shame upon our adjudicatory system which keeps men in jail for years an end without a trial.

In this context it is obvious to know about arrest and its scope in the code of criminal procedure.

“Arrest” means the apprehension of a person suspected of criminal activities” {4}

When a person is found to be committed an offence under I.P.C or ant other law for the time being in force, be arrested by the police officer and a Magistrate as according to the following provisos




According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code a person who is found to be committed an offence may be arrested as mentioned infra:

  BY A MAGISTRATE:    A Magistrate may arrest under the following circumstances,

Section. 44: when an offence is committed in the presence of a magistrate whether Executive or Judicial, within his local jurisdiction, he may himself arrest or order any person to arrest the offender…..”

Section. 87:  A Magistrate is empowered by this code to issue a warrant of arrest for appearance of any person after recording the reasons in writing.

Section. 89: A Magistrate is empowered to issue a warrant of arrest against who is bound by any bond taken under this code for his appearance.

It s to be noted that under sections 87 and 89 the warrant issued by the Magistrate not only against the accused but also any person who disobey the order by the court.

Section. 204: The Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence thinks fit that there is sufficient ground for proceedings and the case appears to be a warrant case, he may issue a warrant against the accused. However it is to be noted that the discretion of Magistrate is essential in issuing warrant.

Section. 319: As per section 319(2) the Magistrate is empowered to issue arrest warrant against a person appearing to be guilty of offence as the circumstances of the case may require him to do so.

 BY POLICE OFFICER: The power of  police officer to arrest is of two fold, former entitles him to arrest without acting under discretion and the latter puts him into the discretion in arresting the offender a per the amended proviso in the CR.P.C.

Without warrant : (without using discretionary power)

 Section 41 (1) (a) : The police officer may arrest any person who commits in his presence a cognizable offence

Section 41(1) (ba) : The police officer may arrest any person who commits any cognizable offence punishable with an imprisonment of a period more than 7 years.{5}

Section 41(1)(c to i) :  The police officer may arrest without warrant under the circumstances mention in sub clauses c to i.

Section 42 : The police officer may arrest a person who commit in his presence a non cognizable offence and refuses to give his name and address.

Section 151 :A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest without the orders/ warrant from a Magistrate as a preventive action to maintain law and order .

Without warrant (with discretionary power)

 Section 41 (1) (b):  The police officer may arrest any person under this section like wise as in the old code section 41 (a) but after fulfilling the grounds mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii)  for arrest and recording in writing about the necessity  of arrest in his case diary. As per section 41 (1) (b) (i) for arresting a person it is very essential for police officer to satisfies about well establishment of guilt and under as per section 41(b) (ii) before arresting a person under this section the police officer has to well firmed about necessity of arrest as mentioned in the circumstances stated under sub clause (a) to (e) to clause (ii).

The new sections brought drastic changes in arrest by the police officer by vesting the discretionary power.

With warrant by police officer :

Section 41 (2) : The police officer is not entitled to arrest a person who commits a non cognizable offence or against whom a complaint has been made   except with the warrant of the Magistrate.

On perusing the above amendments it appears that the recognition of need of arrest in certain cases. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 which came in to force on 1st November 2010 vide Notification: S.O.2687 (E) OF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DATED 30TH OCT 2010.This amendment brought as a result of recommendations made in the 177th Law Commission Report headed by j. B.R. Jeevan reddy.

The theme of the report is to maintain a balance between the liberty of citizens (the most precious of all fundamental rights) and the societal interest a difficult balance but it has to be attempted and achieved to the extent possible. The report taken in to the consideration of the judgments in the cases mainly D.K.Basu (1997) and Joginder kumar (1994) and concentrates on the specific theme “the police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so “

In Amarabati Vs. State of U.P. [2005 CR.L.J 755 ] it was held that arrest and detention in the police custody can cause ill-calculable harm to the reputation and self –esteemed of a person and, that, is why no arrest can be made in routine manner on minor allegation of commission of a crime

In M.C.Abraham Vs. State of M.H. (2003 SCC 628 Cri.) The lordships held that Section 41 gives a discretion to the police officer from a magistrate and even without a warrant may arrest any person in the situation enumerated in that section’

CONCLUSION: It is there fore the concept of arrest has an important role in the criminal justice system and it is inevitable the new changes in the concept of arrest in view of contemporaneous societal changes which recognizes the fundamental rights of citizens.

AIR 1997 SC 610 (D.K.Basu’s case)

  1. AIR SC 1675 (State of M.H. Vs. Champalal)
  2. AIR 1981 SC 939
  3. Oxford Dictionary of Law (3rd Edtn)
  4. The code of Criminal Procedure (Amenment) act 2008.