The definitions in section 2(1), BNSS 2023

“Investigation” includes all the proceedings under this Sanhita 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.

“Inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Sanhita by a Magistrate or Court.

“Trial” is not defined. It is the proceeding which ends in a conviction or acquittal, and it is what the definition of inquiry excludes.

📖 State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, AIR 1963 SC 447

Facts: A High Court, on a petition filed while an investigation was in progress, restrained the police from proceeding further with it. The question was whether a court possesses the power to interfere with a statutory investigation before any report is made to it.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the powers of investigation into cognizable offences are contained in the Chapter dealing with information to the police and their powers to investigate, and that the police have a statutory right to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence without any interference from the judiciary. The Court held that the judicial function begins when a report is made to the Magistrate under the provision corresponding to section 193; until then the matter is in the hands of the police, and a court has no power to stop an investigation or to direct how it should be conducted. It held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to make the order it did, and that the proper course, where an investigation is said to be improper, is to let it proceed and to deal with the result when it comes before the court — the accused’s remedies arising at that stage and thereafter.

Ratio: The police have a statutory right to investigate a cognizable offence without interference from the judiciary. The judicial function begins when a report is made to the Magistrate, and until then a court has no power to stop or direct an investigation.

📖 Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260

Facts: It was contended that a person against whom an investigation was directed was entitled to be heard before steps were taken in it, on the footing that the rule of natural justice requiring a person to be heard before a decision affecting him applies at every stage.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the rule audi alteram partem — that a person must be heard before a decision affecting him — has no application at the stage of investigation. The Court reasoned that the object of an investigation is the collection of material, and that if the suspect were entitled to notice and a hearing before each step, he would be alerted, would have the opportunity to destroy evidence, influence witnesses and abscond, and the investigation would become impossible to conduct. It held that the rule is excluded by necessary implication wherever its application would defeat the very purpose of the power, and that the criminal investigation is the clearest instance. The Court emphasised that the accused is not without protection: the safeguards operate at the later stages — on arrest, at the remand, when cognizance is taken, and throughout the trial — where he is fully heard.

Ratio: The rule that a person must be heard before a decision affecting him has no application at the investigation stage, since it would alert the suspect and defeat the collection of evidence. The safeguards operate at the later stages.

⚠ Why the classification matters in practice

Because a court may not interfere with an investigation but may deal with an inquiry or a trial. An application to stop an investigation faces a different objection from one about the conduct of a proceeding in court.

Because the accused has no right to be heard in an investigation but is heard in an inquiry where the provision requires it, and fully heard at a trial.

Because many provisions apply to “an inquiry or trial” and not to an investigation — among them section 308 (evidence in the presence of the accused), section 346 (adjournments), and the provisions in Chapter XXVI generally.

And because the protections of a trial begin at a definite point. Before the charge is framed the accused is entitled to be considered for discharge; after it, the proceeding is a trial and different provisions govern.

The position stated shortly

1. Investigation includes all proceedings for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer, or by a person other than a Magistrate authorised by one.

2. Inquiry means every inquiry other than a trial conducted by a Magistrate or Court — a definition which is negative and therefore very wide.

3. Trial is not defined. It is the proceeding which ends in conviction or acquittal.

4. An investigation is an executive function; an inquiry and a trial are judicial proceedings.

5. Investigation begins on reason to suspect a cognizable offence and ends with the police report; in a non-cognizable case it cannot begin without a Magistrate’s order.

6. The police have a statutory right to investigate without interference from the judiciary, and the judicial function begins when a report is made: S.N. Basak.

7. A court may direct that an investigation be made, but not how it is to be conducted.

8. The rule that a person must be heard before a decision affecting him has no application at the investigation stage, since it would alert the suspect and defeat the collection of evidence: W.N. Chadha.

9. The trial begins with the framing of the charge, or in a summons case with the stating of the substance of the accusation. Everything before that is an inquiry.

10. The classification decides whether a court may interfere, whether the accused may be heard, which provisions apply, and when the protections of a trial begin.