The world is ever developing, and the technology boom has laid its foundations for all parts of society. Everything, from communication to preparing to documentation, has gone digital. Numerous organizations from conglomerates to startups, conduct important meetings and business deals on emails. The current Indian situationwith the ever-expanding web-based business exercises and e-administration activities from the state, the acceptability of e-evidence in the Court has become a pertinent issue. The Indian computerized system began with the introduction of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Information Technology Act inserted Section 65A and Section 65B in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, these sections talk about electronic evidence and its admissibility. Before examining electronic evidence, it is important to initially comprehend the meaning of evidence. Today, numerous e-evidences are introduced before the courts in India consistently, including storage devices, for example, DVD or Hard Disk to portable SMS or even a mail or site information. Subsequently, with the widespread utilization of electronics intends to encourage business deals, it is fundamental to comprehend the enforceability of such transactions in India's Courts of law, all the more explicitly, the admissibility of electronic records as evidence to build up the legality of such transactions. Are electronic records admissible in India?The evidentiary value of an electronic record relies on its quality.To keep up with the growing pace of technology, the legislature authorized the Information Technology (I.T.) Act, 2000, and amended the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in 2016 to perceive and incorporate electronic records as admissible evidence. Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000defines an electronic record as data, record, or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or microfilm or computer-generated microfiche. What is the meaning of Evidence? - Evidence is a type of confirmation/proof introduced to instigate confidence in the matter. The legal meaning of the term Evidence has been laid down in Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 3 defines evidence to mean and incorporate the following:- ·        All explanations which the Court allows or needs to be made before it by witnesses, concerning matters of truth under request, such statements are called oral evidence; ·        All documents, including electronic records delivered for the Court's review, such documents are called documentary evidence. In addition, Evidence can be separated into two parts.·        Oral, or Documentary ·        Primary, or Secondary Primary evidence implies that the document itself was delivered for the review of the Court, whereas Secondary Evidence implies and incorporates certified copies, copies produced using the original by mechanical cycles, copies made from or compared with the originals, counterparts of documents as against the parties who didn't execute them and oral records of the substance of a document given by some individual who has himself seen it.  Electronic Evidence: Primary or Secondary?Electronic or digital evidence is any data that is stored or transmitted digitallyis secondary evidence. Electronic records' evidentiary value is generally examined under section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.The sections state that if the four conditions listed are fulfilled, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in an optical media, created by a computer is considered to be a document and is admissible in proceedings without any additional confirmation or production of the original, as evidence of any contacts of the original or any facts expressed in that, which direct evidence would be acceptable. The four conditions alluded to above are: (1) The computer output containing such information ought to have been delivered by the computer when the computer was utilized consistently to store, or handle data for any exercises routinely carried on during that period by the individual having legal command over the utilization of the computer.(2) During such period, data of the kind contained in the electronic record was consistently fed into the computer in the ordinarycourse of such exercises. (3) Throughout the material piece of such period, the computer must be working appropriately. On the off chance that the computer was not appropriately working during such period, it should be indicated that this didn't influence the electronic record or the precision of the contents. (4) The data contained in the electronic record ought to be as reproduced or derived from such data fed into the computer in the ordinary course of such activities.  Court PrecedentsState (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005)- In this case, the Supreme Court had held that courts could concede electronic records, for example, printouts and compact discs as prima facie evidence without validation. This case dealt with the evidence and admissibility of the records of cell phone calls. The accused presented that no dependence could be set on the cell phone records on the grounds that the prosecution had neglected to deliver the applicable certificate under section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act and that the procedure set out in section 65B of the Evidence Act was not followed. The Supreme Court reasoned that a cross interrogation of the competent witness familiar with the computer's working during the suitable time and way in which the printouts call records were taken was adequate to demonstrate the call records. Therefore, the printouts and C.D.s were not compared with the original electronic record or certified when citing it as evidence. The Court inferred that the necessity of a certificate under Section 65B isn't generally compulsory and regardless of the compliance of the prerequisites of Section 65B, there is no bar to showing secondary evidence under different provisions of the Evidence Act.  Anvar P.V. Versus P.K. Basheer 2014- In this case, the Court has interpreted Section 22A, 45A, 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act and held that secondary information in CD/DVD/Pen Drive is not acceptable without a certificate u/s 65 B (4) of Evidence Act. It has been clarified that electronic proof without certificate u/s 65B can't be demonstrated by oral evidence and furthermore the opinion of the expert u/s 45A Evidence Act can't be turned to making such electronic evidence allowable.  The Supreme Court declined to acknowledge the view that the Courts could admit electronic records as prima facie evidence without confirmation. On account of any electronic record, it was held that it ought to be accompanied by the certificate regarding section 65B acquired at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence about that electronic record is forbidden. The Supreme Court held that the reason for these provisions is to sanctify electronic evidence. The prerequisite of giving an electronic certificate under Section 65B about any electronic evidence or electronic record is required for treating such evidence as admissible under law.  Shafi Mohammad v. Territory of H.P. (2018)- From that point forward, the Supreme Court, in this case, held that the necessity of the declaration under Section 65B of the Evidence Act according to the judgment of Anvar P.V. isn't needed in the accompanying two cases: - 1. A party who doesn't have a device from which the document is delivered can't be required to produce a certificate under Section 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act 2. The pertinence of the authentication being procedural can be relaxed by the Court wherever interest of justice so legitimizes. To settle the two unique interpretations between Anvar P.V. and, Shafi Mohammad, the mater alluded to larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors, settled on July 14 2020. The Supreme Court held that the certificate needed under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is a condition precedent for any electronic proof's admissibility. The Court explained that the certificate under Section 65B (4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. Assume the proprietor demonstrates a laptop, computer, tablet, or a cell phone possessed or operated by him brings the same in the witness box, on which the original information is first stored. Hence, the certificates' requirement under Section 65B (4) is unnecessary. It was further held that Oral Evidence in the place of such certificate couldn't in any way, suffice as Section 65B (4) is an obligatory necessity of the law. Thus, the Court held that Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act obviously expresses that secondary evidence is admissible only if followed in the way expressed and not something else. Henceforth, severe consistency with section 65B is currently required for people who depend on any electronic record before the Indian courts. WhatsApp messages as evidenceTechnology has become an indispensable aspect of our everyday lives. Throughout humankind's existence, we have perceived how web-based services are being utilized in committing a crime and other wrongdoings. On the premises that WhatsApp has become a verb, let's discuss WhatsApp Chats' suitability in a courtroom.As a means of communication, the utilization of WhatsApp by the organization's employee is quickly expanding. For close collaboration with partners and customers, WhatsApp is viewed as the best reasonable informing stage for the representatives. In the wake of seeing the expanding utilization of online media platforms like WhatsApp, the Court started to admit texts and pictures sent on these platforms as Evidence in criminal and civil issues. There are some particular principles by which WhatsApp content ought to be referred to as evidence in the Court. In Indian courts, WhatsApp chats are viewed as an electronic record and are permissible as a conventional document. There are some conditions which should be satisfied for the admissibility of WhatsApp messages as Evidence: ·        The recipient should have received the messages, i.e. in the context of WhatsApp, double ticks. ·        The telephone should be in regular use. It ought not to be damaged. ·        The sender should have the intention to send those messages. WhatsApp Chats: Primary or Secondary Evidence?In Girwar Singh v. CBI, electronic evidence was introduced before the Court, for which a committee was appointed to check the authenticity of the electronic evidence. Later, the committee found that the evidence wasn't the original one or the copy of the original. The evidence was copied numerous times in different devices. Consequently, the Delhi H.C. held the electronic evidence was unacceptable in that case. Here, it should be noticed that the presentation of evidence which has been copied from an original document is known as Secondary Evidence. Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states different instances when Evidence is viewed as Secondary Evidence. Then again, Section 62 characterizes Primary Evidence as a document introduced in its original form for the inspection in the Court. It prompts a relevant inquiry, regardless of whether WhatsApp visits will be considered as Primary or Secondary Evidence? In the case of Vikas Garg and Ors. v. Territory of Haryana (2017), the High Court depended on WhatsApp chats to hold the accused liable for assault, among different offences. Afterward, the Supreme Court remained the High Court's order for bail, and according to the most recent information accessible, the Special Leave Petition is forthcoming before the Court. Later in 2018, the Delhi High Court's division bench dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of accused by the Trial Court for offences under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1850. The bench considered WhatsApp chats between the parties which were properly admitted by the prosecutrix in interrogation. The Court accepted that the chat content exhibit that the prosecutrix has assented for an actual relationship out of her choice and with no incitement. A substantial and enforceable understanding can be made by means of WhatsAppIn the case of Shamsudin Bin Mohd. Yosuf v. Suhaila Binti Sulaiman the Court held that in any case, when most of the communication between the parties is done in WhatsApp, there was a substantial oral agreement and is enforceable by law. The importance of Blue tick on WhatsApp in a legitimate suitThe Bombay High Court, in the case of, SBI Cards and Instalment Administrations Pvt. Ltd. v. Rohit Jadhav, observed that the defaulter had gotten the notification in WhatsApp as well as opened that notice. At that point, Bombay High Court held that after sending a message through WhatsApp, if a blue tick appears, then the informing application is viewed as factual verification that the Respondent had gotten that notice which is viewed as legitimate Evidence. Other important case lawsThe Delhi High Court in National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms and Ors Versus Union of India and Ors, 2017, held that a WhatsApp post doesn't qualify as legitimate lawful Evidence under the Evidence Act, particularly when neither the original nor a copy of the first document is delivered. Unexpectedly, the Bombay High Court held SMS/WhatsApp messages to be allowable under the Court of law under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, in the case of SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt Ltd. versus Rohidas Yadav, settled on June 11 2018. The Court held that messages sent through WhatsApp chats are viewed as legitimate Evidence under the law. The blue tick in WhatsApp is legitimate evidence that the Respondent has acknowledged the communication's physical copy.Email as EvidenceAbdul Rahaman Kunji Vs. The State of West Bengal-The High Court of Calcutta while deciding the admissibility of email held that an email downloaded and printed from an individual's email record can be proved under Section 65B r/w Section 88A of Evidence Act. The witnesses' declaration to carry out such a strategy to download and print the same is adequate to prove the electronic communication.  In the case of Smt Bharathi V Rao v. Sri Pramod G Rao, the learned judge held that messages go under the definition'electronic record' under section 2(t) Information Technology Act 2000 admissible as Evidence. The Delhi High court clarified section 65B in detail and held that the computer output, when provisions of section 65-B are fulfilled, is treated as Evidence of the contents of the original or facts in that direct evidence is admissible. It determines that the onus of proving its originality lies in the individual who tried to create it as Evidence. Electronic Evidence should be accompanied by a certificate according to section 65B of the Act. ConclusionMost business firms conduct their meetings on online platforms and contents of those meetings are shared among the representatives through texting platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram and much more. The legal system in India is additionally turning into a technologically developed system one step at a time. Internet informing applicationsare conceded by the Court of law as legitimate evidence. The penultimate step demonstrates the electronic record/evidence by creating the original electronic media as Primary Evidence court or its copy, as optional proof u/s 65A/65B of Evidence Act. Thus, on account of CD, DVD, Memory Cards and so on containing secondary evidence, the same will be joined by the certificate regarding Section 65B acquired at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence relating to the electronic record, is forbidden.Notwithstanding, there are different issues which are emerging relating to the authorship of the certificate. Therefore, WhatsApp chats are never to be conceded in the Court as primary evidence, rather; secondary evidence. While the law on electronic evidence is still in its beginning stage, following the Information Technology Act, 2000, we hope to see significant advancements on this topic in the near future.

PRE-ARREST NOTICE - SECTION 41-A OF CRIMINAL POCEDURE CODE-         By Kishan Dutt KalaskarUnder Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to life has been offered a principal status by the judiciary. Article 21 and 22 ensure against arbitrary detainment and arrest and the legal judiciary now. In a few cases, it has defended this interest and restricted the leader's power to make pointless arrest and confinement. Police have been charged over and over for making an unlawful arrest with no justification, and because of this, an average person, particularly from lower strata of society, needs to suffer a greater amount of this since he/she doesn't know about the law at the hour of arrest and the subsequent reason being that he/she can't draw in an Attorney soon the arrest is made, due to which the Police utilizing their capacity, abuse individuals under their authority and gets away with it without any problem. This Article attempts to analyze Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.  What Is Section 41a of Cr. P.C.?  As per Section 41 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, 'Cr. P.C.'), if any police officer requires the participation of any individual who is not requiredto be fundamentally arrested under Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence," the official can give a notice for the equivalent. The individual to whom the Notice is served is obliged to show up at the specified place and time. The individual confirming to the Notice will not be arrested except if in any case considered fit by the Police for which the official is duty-bound to record reasons in writing. Inability to consent to the Notice is a ground for arrest.                                                    History of The 'Notice Of Appearance' Section 41A was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009). However, recently after the enactment of this Amendment, representations were received by the Union Government. Thus, some specific amendments were brought in by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2010 (41 of 2010).The earlier sub-section (1) of Section 41A read: "The police officer may, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice."  The 2010 amendment ensured that a police officer issues such Notice by substituting 'shall' in place of 'may' vide section 3(a) of the 2010 amendment Act. The Amendment also enacted a proviso to section 41(1)(b)(ii) providing for recording of reasons for not arresting an accused. However, the Supreme Court directed in Arnesh Kumar case that issuing a notice of appearance under Section 41A was thoughtfully implemented. The Supreme Court held that their endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that a police officer does not arrest any accused unnecessarily, and the Magistrate does not authorize detention casually and mechanically. To confirm what the Top Court observed above, it gave the following direction:    (1) All the State Governments instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessary details before that arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 of Cr. P.C.;   (2) All police officers must be given a checklist that contains specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C.;   (3) The police officer should forward the checklist duly filed and produce the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest while taking the accused before the Magistrate for his further detention;   (4) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall pursue the report produced by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording their satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;(5) The decision of not arresting an accused, must be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with Police to the Magistrate which may be extended further by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;   (6) The Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr. P.C. must be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may further be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;   (7) A failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for their departmental action; shall also be held liable for contempt of court, which is to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.   (8) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for their departmental action by the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.   Finally, the Supreme Court added that the directions as mentioned earlier do not apply to the cases that fall under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the matter in hand, but also such instances in which the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than seven years, or which may extend to seven years; either with fine or without fine.   In Arnesh Kumar's case, the directions laid down are a statutory set of instructions to avoid unnecessary arrest. However, in this case, the safeguards deal with the incident of arrest and the power of arrest itself is not curtailed thereby.     In the case of Amandeep Singh Johar vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr., the Delhi High Court has laid down a model format for issuance of Notice under section 41A of the Cr.P.C., containing a warning at the end of the model notice format which states that the failure to comply with the terms of this Notice, can render a person liable for arrest under Section 41A (3) and (4) of Cr. P.C. Sub-section 3 of Section 41A contains a broader premise for arresting even though an accused appears before the investigating officer responds to the Notice of appearance. The said sub-section reads, "where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer believes that he ought to be arrested."    Difficulties underlying Section 41-ASection 41 A orders Notice's issuance to the blamed where the arrest for the individual isn't needed according to Section 41(1). Nonetheless, two peculiarities surface up;firstly, the authoritative content of Section 41(1) itself offers discretion to the Police in issues of arrest, as is obvious from the utilization of the word 'may' in the provision. Henceforth, it is open for the Police to decide whether a specific issue falls inside the ambit of Section 41(1) or 41A. Along these lines, the provision which was consolidated to restrict the power of arrest vested to Police under 41(1) has left it upon the Police himself to choose the relevance of the equivalent. Hence, if the Police consider the issue to be good for arrest under Section 41(1), he can at present do as such without any respect to the provisions of Section 41A.  Also, the utilization of subjective terms in the provision, for example, "reasonable complaint", "credible information'', "reasonable suspicion" open space for maltreatment of such powers and leaving tremendous degree for the Police to practice their prudence. Further, 41A (3) furnishes the Police with an occasion to arrest an individual even after confirming with the Notice if the Police believes that the arrest is vital. Additionally, the quick attentiveness to choose consistency with the Notice is vested in the Police. This provision especially builds the Police's ambit to arrest without a warrant – extending it to violations that don't fall under the limits of Section 41(1). The current peculiarities have not controlled themselves to administrative provisions, there have been various cases where abuse of the force vested under Section 41A has been affirmed or demonstrated.  In Tanuja Roy v. State of Assam and Ors., an F.I.R. under Section 420 and 406 being held up against the accused, three police officers from the Dispur Police Station powerfully took the Petitioner to the police headquarters at 1:00 am regardless of opposition from the candidate. She was confined discretionarily, for extended periods without being given any explanation, after which Notice was served to her under Section 41A. The game-plan received by the Police in the current case was uncalled-for. The Court descended intensely upon the Police Officials while holding their activities to be in contradiction of Section 46(4) of the Cr. P.C. Furthermore, not following what Section 41A specifies to deter the force under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., the investigatingofficer may control the F.I.R. Although the control of F.I.R. was not demonstrated in the moment case, such action isn't altogether uncommon. AnalysisAccording to Section 41- A of the Cr.P.C., on the off chance that Police feels that arrest isn't of need, at that point it would be legitimately judicious to give a notice which coordinates an individual against whom a sensible protest has been made and wherein a sensible doubt keeps on continuing, guiding the blamed being referred to show up before the official or at any place determined by Notice. It is the lawful obligation of the individual against whom the Notice has been coordinated to follow the Notice, and as long as he keeps on conforming to the states of the Notice, he will not be arrested, and wherein he neglects to do as such, he is subject to be detained relying on requests passed by a Competent Court.  The Police's optional power is practically limitless as they have limitless powers, particularly upon the perspective on the sub-section (3) of Section 41A which records that the Police can make arrests notwithstanding consistency from the charged. One should address whether this is in rebellion of the administrative aim of the provision.  A line of argument can be created which centres around a potential polarity between arrests made under Section 41 and 41A. Section 41A is summoned simply after; the Police utilizing their tact concludes that arrest of the speculated individual or people isn't needed. This is to state that, the Police have mulled over the entirety of the conditions referenced under Section 41 (1), preceding sending the speculated individual a notice according to Section 41A. Likewise, the High Court of Orissa held that this implies that the cases covered by Section 41(1) have been barred from the domain of Section 41-A. Thus, it is most likely to contend that the idea of arrests under the two sections is unique. This would also imply that the rules and the strategy set up in resulting decisions aremade under Section 41 and hence can't be applied to arrests made under Section 41A.  Presently on the off chance that we fathom a circumstance where, the accused's arrest is ordered under Section 41 (1), and the conditions and justification for arrest as determined in Section 41 are satisfied, and still, at the end of the day Section 41A can make a proviso helping the Police. It owns the Police itself to determine if the conditions in Section 41 were met or not to raise a reasonable ground for the utilization of Section 41A. It could offer ascent to occasions where the Police apply Section 41A and send a notice of appearance rather than straightforwardly capturing the individual. The explanations behind such an activity could be various. It may very well be done to dodge strategies set down by Arnesh Kumar concerning arrests made by the Police without a request. The methodology set up is to be followed compulsorily, and Section 41A permits the Police to get away from these techniques and arrest discretionarily. The Section likewise adds a purpose behind the Police to arrest a speculated individual – arrest for rebelliousness with the Notice's conditionsand consequently expanding the arrest forces.  Likewise, as the Section offers discretion to the Police, this all-around degenerate police power can manhandle this one case, the Police may require the presence of the blamed individual through Notice, while in a similar case another indistinguishably arranged individual to arrest. Subsequently, there is each probability that the Police will abuse this provision for ulterior reasons.  Another problematic part of the Section is that under the Section the Police can arrange the presumed individual to show up before the official at "such other place as determined in the notice". This would imply that the individual could be arranged to visit any place where the Police would require him and not merely the police headquarters.  Henceforth, note that the Police have abused the provision of Section 41-A. The said Section has exclusively vested its forces upon the Police along these lines, leaving space for it to be misused. The validity of the reports delivered by the Police to feature non-collaboration concerning the charges with exploring organizations or showing that they didn't show up when gathered should likewise be addressed. It isn't past the genuine to expect that a few notices are made after the individual has been arrestedin order to show that Notice was given on past dates. The extension for this provision to be authoritative is amazingly huge and that it has been demonstrated that the Police have utilized this provision to badger charged people, as found on account of Amandeep Singh Johar. It was never the aim of the assembly to consider blameless people to be annoyed by the Police, and it is incredibly remembered that while assessing the utilization of the provision of 41-A by the Police.  Presently to handle these rising misbehaviors through a change, the governing body set up a severe method to be followed while the issuance of a notice under Section 41A. In any case, the judgment and the methodology are tricky in their regard. A significant case for the assessment of Section 41-A is that of Amandeep Singh Johar versus the State of N.C.T. of Delhi. For this situation, the applicant advanced that notwithstanding consistency before the specialists, an F.I.R. came to be enrolled against him under Sec 498A and 406 of the I.P.C. He also featured how he was regularly brought to show up before the police headquarters. No composed notification was available in a few occurrences, which is an essential condition under Section 41-A. He affirmed both that the rules of Section 41-A disagreed and that these weren't sufficient to guarantee the security of the individuals called subjects of criminal examinations. The significant rules set somewhere near the Amandeep Singh Johar case included allowing rescheduling of the gathering if it isn't adverse to the Police and sensible. It additionally focused on the significance of consenting to the provisions of Section 41-A concerning the issuance of a notification by the Police. Notwithstanding, what is additionally noteworthy is that the judgment gave a route to the investigating officerto set down conditions other than those referenced by the Court which essentially must be followed, the disappointment of which would make an individual subject to be arrested as per Section 41-A (3). Ongoing judgments that have referenced the rules have not set up an away from the strategy given in Amandeep judgment; however, have marked the technique to be "rigidly and obligatorily applied".  ConclusionFrom the above discussion, because an examining officer having powers under the Cr.P.C can arrest an accused person for the reasons under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C, it isn't important to arrest a charged individual for each situation where a criminal offence is enlisted and is under scrutiny.  A decent measure of discretion must be left with the investigating officer to be reasonable for the public purpose behind the investigation, which is to discover reality on account of criminal offences, which are traditionally treated as offences against the tranquillity of the general public at large. Notwithstanding, this can't be at the expense of fundamental procedural fairness. The off chance that procedure is codified for shielding an accused from pointless arrest and for pre-FIR preliminary inquiry should be interpreted to protect an accused from unnecessary harassment. Subsequently, such a method can't be suggested by any implication to bias a prospective accused or accused individual.