Source: http://www.wadhwabooks.in/home/305-sarkar-on-the-code-of-criminal-procedure-2-volume-set-9789351434627.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:38:11+00:00

Document:
Sarkar's Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoys the reputation of being one of the most authoritative publications on the subject. Authenticity, originality and reliability have always been the hallmarks of this publication and every possible care has been taken in this edition to maintain the original excellence, quality and unique style of the work.
The Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the dynamics of enforcement. It is the law in its dynamic aspect—the law in motion. Substantive law cannot achieve its objective effectively without the assistance of procedural law which makes the law of procedure occupy a pivotal role in the effective functioning of the criminal justice system. This edition has been thoroughly updated to include all latest and notable decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, as well as current developments in the law relating to criminal procedure in India.
In recent years, there has been a number of judicial pronouncements settling the position on a multitude of legal issues. In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. ofU.R, AIR 2014 SC 187 : (2014) 2 SCC 1, a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under S. 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by them discloses a cognizable offence. Similarly, in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2014 SC 1400 : (2014) 3 SCC 92, another five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the word 'evidence' in S. 319 of the Code means only such evidence as is made before the Court. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the Court to decide whether power under S. 319 of the Code is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during investigation. In Sangeet v. State ofHaryana, AIR 2013 SC 447 : (2013) 2 SCC 452, the Supreme Court clarified that a prisoner serving a life sentence has no indefeasible right to release on completion of either fourteen years or twenty years imprisonment. A convict undergoing life imprisonment is expected to remain in custody till the end of his life, subject to any remission granted by the appropriate Government under S. 432 of the Code. In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, 2014 CrLJ 1327 (SC) : (2014) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has held that if there is undue, unexplained and inordinate delay in execution of death sentence, the Supreme Court is well within its powers under Art. 32 to hear the grievance of the convict and commute the death sentence into life imprisonment on this ground alone after satisfying that the delay was not caused at the instance of the accused himself. In this case, the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines for safeguarding the interest of the death row convicts. Similarly, in Arnesh Kumar v. State ofBihar, AIR 2014 SC 2756 : (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Supreme Court gave directions to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrates do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. The points enumerated above are only some of the matters which have been discussed in this edition.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 32
 v.