Abstract
The police take cognizance of criminal offences so as to investigate them and bring the offenders to justice. While investigation is a purely administrative activity, many decisions taken by the police before and during investigation have definite quasi-judicial undertones. The decision to treat a person as a suspect carries implications on that individual’s personal liberty. In matters where an offence has not occurred in the immediate presence of a law enforcement officer, such a decision is based on yet to be tested evidence. The operational requirement of investigation requires the investigator to act upon probable cause and credible leads. The investigator must satisfy himself/herself of the factual tenability of such facts and leads. The nature of discretion exercised at this stage is purely subjective but it has to be based on objective facts and is bound to be fair and just in its approach and functioning. Law enforcement especially in democratic countries requires adherence to a high standard of functional probity. Administrative and functional caprice is proscribed both by statute as well as precedent. The criminal investigation process is therefore quasi-judicial in nature. It possesses elements of pure administrative practice as well as those of the judicial process. This paper seeks to study the degrees of similarities, differences, convergence and divergence between the quasi-judicial nature of the criminal investigative process that starts with taking cognizance of criminal offences and leads to their investigation.
Presenters
Aaditya GoreAdvocate, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Administration of Justice, Delhi, India Anuradha Parasar
Professor, Arts, Humanities, Liberal Arts, Dr Vishwanath Karad MIT World Peace University, Rajasthan, India
Details
Presentation Type
Theme
KEYWORDS
Cognizance, Crime, Investigation, Police, Quasi-Judicial
