HISTORY OF CRPC

 In medieval India, after the Muslim conquest, the ‘Mohammedan criminal law’ came
into prevalence. Subsequent to this, The British passed the ‘Regulating Act of
1773’ which led to the establishment of Supreme courts in three presidency towns of
Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. The effect of the statute was to apply British
procedural law while deciding upon the cases of Crown’s subjects. After 1857 Revolt,
the crown took over the Indian administration. The British parliament passed
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1861 which continued till the post-Independence era
and was amended in 1969. It was finally replaced in 1972.
The Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [i] (Act No. 2 of 1974[ii])  is the main
legislation on the procedure for administration on substantive criminal law in India[iii] which
provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals,
collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the
determination of punishment of the guilty. Additionally, it also deals with public nuisance,
prevention of offenses and maintenance of wife and children. The Act consists of 484
sections, which are further divided into 38 chapters, 2 schedules, and 56 forms.

 There was no uniform law of criminal procedure for the whole of India. For the
guidance of the Courts there were separate Acts which were applicable in erstwhile
provinces and the presidency towns. The Acts which were applicable in the
presidency towns were first consolidated by the Criminal Procedure Supreme Court
Act (16 of 1852). The Acts which were applicable in the provinces were consolidated
by the Criminal Procedure Code (25 of 1861). Criminal Procedure. Supreme Courts
Act was replaced by the High Court Criminal Procedure Act (12 of 1865) and the
Criminal Procedure Code was replaced by Act 10 of 1872. A uniform law of
procedure for the whole of India was consolidated by the Code of Criminal Procedure
of 1882 (10 of 1882) It was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of
1898). This Code of 1898 had been amended by various amending Acts. In 1955
extensive amendments were made to simplify procedure and to speed up trials. The
State Governments too made a large number of amendments to the Code of 1898. To
make the criminal procedure more comprehensive the Law Commission was asked to
undertake a detailed examination of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 The
Commission submitted its report on 19th February, 1968 In the meanwhile Law
Commission was reconstituted and the reconstituted commission made a detailed
study of the Code of 1898 and submitted its report in September, 1969. Thereafter a
draft Bill (41 of 1970) was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 10th December, 1970
The Bill was referred to a Joint Select Committee of both the Houses of Parliament
Incorporating the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee the Code of
Criminal Procedure Bill was taken up for consideration by the Parliament
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
 The law relating to criminal procedure applicable to all criminal proceedings in India
(except those in the States of Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland the Tribal Areas in
Assam) is contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 The Code has been
amended from time to time by various Acts of the Central and State Legislatures The
more important of these were the amendments brought about by Central legislation in
 1923 and 1955 The amendments of 1955 were extensive and were intended to
simplify procedures and speed up trials as far as possible. In addition, local
amendments were made by State Legislatures of which the most important were those
made to bring about separation of the Judiciary from the Executive. Apart from these
amendments, the provisions of the Code of 1898 have remained practically unchanged
through these decades and no attempt was made to have a comprehensive revision of
this old Code till the Central Law Commission was set up in 1955.
The first Law Commission presented its Report (the Fourteenth Report) on the Reform of
Judicial Administration, both civil and criminal in 1958; it was not concerned with
detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it did make
some recommendations in regard to the law of criminal procedure, some of which
required amendments to the Code. A systematic examination of the Code was
subsequently undertaken by the Law Commission not only for giving concrete form to the
recommendations made in the Fourteenth Report but also with the object of attempting a
general revision.
 Commission was to suggest measures to remove anomalies and ambiguities brought
to light by conflicting decisions of the High Courts or otherwise to consider local
variations with a view to securing and maintaining uniformity, to consolidate laws
wherever possible and to suggest improvements where necessary Suggestions for
improvements received from various sources were considered by the Commission. A
comprehensive report for the revision of the Code, namely, the Forty-first Report, was
presented by the Law Commission in September 1969 This report took into
consideration the recommendations made in the earlier reports of the Commission
dealing with specific matters, namely, the Fourteenth Twenty-fifth Thirty-second,
Thirty-third, Thirty-sixth, Thirty-seventh and Fortieth Reports . The recommendations
of the Commission were examined carefully by the Government, keeping in view
among others, the following basic considerations:—
(i) an accused person should get a fair trial in accordance with the accepted principles
of natural justice;
(ii) every effort should be made to avoid delay in investigation and trial which is
harmful not only to the individuals involved but also to society; and
(iii) the procedure should not be complicated and should, to the utmost extent
possible, ensure fair deal to the poorer sections of the community The occasion
has been availed of to consider and adopt where appropriate suggestions received
from other quarters, based on practical experience of investigation and the
working of criminal Courts
One of the main recommendations of the Commission is to provide for the separation of
the Judiciary from the Executive on an all India basis in order to achieve uniformity in
this matter To secure this, the Bill seeks to provide for a new set up of criminal Courts In
addition to ensuring fair deal to the accused, separation as provided for in the Bill would
ensure improvement in the quality and speed of disposal as all Judicial Magistrates would
be legally qualified and trained persons working under close supervision of the High
Court
Some of the more important changes proposed to be made with a view to speeding
up the disposal of criminal cases are—
(a) the preliminary inquiry which precedes the trial by a Court of Session, otherwise
known as committal proceedings, is being abolished as it does not serve any useful
purpose and has been the cause of considerable delay in the trial of offences;
(b) provision is being made to enable adoption of the summons procedure for the trial of
offences punishable with imprisonment up to two years instead of up to one year as at
present; this would enable a larger number of cases being disposed of expeditiously;
(c) the scope of summary trials is being widened by including offences punishable with
imprisonment up to one year instead of six months as at present; summons procedure will
be adopted for all summary trials;
(d) the powers of revision against interlocutory orders are being taken away, as it has
been found to be one of the main contributing factors in the delay of disposal of criminal
cases;
(e) the provision for compulsory stoppage of proceedings by a subordinate Court on the
mere intimation from a party of his intention to move a higher Court for transfer of the
case is being omitted and a further provision is being made to the effect that the Court
hearing the transfer application shall not stay proceedings unless it is necessary to do so
in the interest of justice;
(f) when adjournments are granted at the instance of either party, the Court is being
empowered to order costs to be paid by the party obtaining the adjournments to the other
party;
(g) provision is being made for the service of summons by registered post in certain
cases;
(h) in petty cases, the accused is being enabled to plead guilty by post and to remit the
fine specified in the summons;
(i) if a Court of appeal or revision discovers that any error, omission or irregularity in
respect of a charge has occasioned failure of justice it need not necessarily order retrial;
(j) the facility of part-heard cases being continued by successors-in-office now available
in respect of Courts of Magistrates is being extended to Courts of Session In addition to
the above specific measures, the Commission's recommendations which are intended to
resolve conflicts of decisions on various matters or to remove ambiguities have been
given effect to and these provisions may, by themselves, help in reducing the time taken
in litigation
Some of the more important changes intended to provide relief to the proper
sections of the community are—
(a) provisions have been made for giving legal aid to an indigent accused in cases triable
by a Court of Session; the State Government may extend this facility to other categories
of cases;
(b) the Court has been empowered to order payment of compensation by the accused to
the victims of crimes, to a larger extent than is now permissible under the Code;
(c) when a Commission is issued for the examination of a witness for the prosecution, the
cost incurred by the defence including pleader's fees may be ordered to be paid by the
prosecution; (d) the accused will be given an opportunity to make representation against
the punishment before it is imposed .
In addition to these specific provisions, the steps taken to reduce delays would themselves
automatically benefit the poorer sections, as it is they who particularly suffer by the
prolongation of criminal cases