On Wednesday, five o'clock block, you know, I've been looking forward to this show for a long time. Yeah, good, Jay. Good to be here. Yeah, this is our show, John David Ann, about history lens and talking about transformations today. Right. And this is really important. This is really an important discussion. Right, right. So, yeah, so we're going to, so we're wrapping up our series on political transformations and we, you know, we talked about the first part of the founding of the country in the 1790s and then we talked about the 1850s and the transformations there, the founding of the Republican Party, right? And then we talked about the 1890s when the populist movement tried to, tried its hand at transformation, tried to actually take control of the federal government and ran William Jennings Bryan and then he lost badly and the populists, they didn't disappear, but they really declined after Bryan lost. And then, and now we're talking about the 1920s and the 1930s when, of course, with the economic crash, the Great Depression, then you have a new set of populists who say, hey, we're not doing enough, we should do this and we should do that. And so, I think- And the country was different in the sense that there were millions of immigrants who had come in. Yes. And 20 or 30 years before that. True. It had been repopulated. That's true, right, right. And most of those immigrants, they didn't have much of a political identity before the 1930s. In the 1930s, because of what happens, they gain a political identity and it's, you know, what you have in the 1930s is this devastating situation where, you know, you have 25 percent unemployment, 50 percent drop in industrial production of, you know, just the great dust bowl in the mid-western and the- Oh, he's in the Arches going to the West. That's right. That's right. People who are so poor who are going- Actually, my grandfather and his family, including my mom as a little child, went from South Dakota where they had a farm and they couldn't farm it during the dust bowl. They put their, you know, packed up their stuff and they drove to, I think it was Washington, Washington state, and they picked apples for two summers straight to make a living. All that to consider, the country was at great risk at that time. It was an incredible situation. It was a question of whether it would survive, whether the political system would survive. Exactly, exactly. Good. This is very important to understand about the 1930s and really, when we look at the present day transformations, I don't think we're there yet in terms of a question of whether or not the country can survive economically. And so, you know, in the 1930s, you have capitalism, which has essentially failed. I mean, all of these companies have failed. Henry Ford actually takes his production offline for, I think, from 1929 to 1932. He's not producing any automobiles. Nobody could afford them. Yeah, exactly. That's right. So, you have a situation, and all the major industries are suffering because no one can buy anything. No one has any money. You have, so, along with the 50% drop in industrial production, this is almost exactly the same percentage drop in income. You have a tremendous deflation in the economy. The economy deflates by about 50%, and that means people's incomes essentially deflate by 50%. Costs also deflate some, but if you're not employed, if you don't have a job, it doesn't really matter, right? I keep thinking, and music is playing in my head while you're saying this, and this is the music. Brother. The hills are alive. Not that song. Brother. Can you spare a dime? Right, exactly. In a funny way. I mean, it's really sad what happened. I mean, a lot of people died. No, it's true. Yeah. People died in the streets. No options. Died in the streets. In the winter of 1933, which was terribly cold, and people were being turned out of their rentals because they couldn't pay the rent. I want to offer you a point about the morality of the country in that period. Brother, can you spare a dime? It's so important, because what it tells you is that all of a sudden, people who didn't know each other, people from disparate locations, disparate backgrounds, cared. Right. They had no choice to care. No, that's true. That's true. And they did. They kind of came together on some moral level, and that fiber, those threads, is still with us, I hope, today. Okay. Well, yes, and I hope so too, because that's an important point, and that's a concern of mine as well, that we become so materialistic and focused on consumption that can we actually understand political change as something other than about the economy, but about protection of basic values, the soul of the country as Joe Biden. The glue that holds us together is about caring. Right, as Joe Biden says. So what happens in the early 1930s then, Roosevelt wins the election. He wins handily because Herbert Hoover was really not doing much of anything, and Roosevelt says we'll do everything to try to solve this situation. The problem for Roosevelt, after two years of doing everything, is the situation is still dire. By 1935, the agricultural economy has improved somewhat, but the industrial economy, not much at all. Unemployment is still above 20%. You still have distress, and also what you have, because of this, is you have the emergence of two characters, two political characters, who are, they become enemies of Roosevelt. They actually support him in the election of 1932, and then they become enemies of 1933 onward, and I'm talking about Father Coughlin and Huey Long, the kingfisher, that great politician, that great demagogue from Louisiana. So let's take Long, okay. Long is a very interesting character, and I think we've talked about him before, but one of the things that Long does is Long actually, as a young man, as a young adult, he identifies something which is so current it fits our situation today. Long in the 1920s sends an editorial, sends a letter actually to the New Orleans item, which is a newspaper. And in that editorial, he talks about how wealth inequality is so terrible, I think he says, something like 65 to 75% of all the wealth in the country is controlled by the top 1% in the country, and he was, that was a little bit of an exaggeration, but Huey Long cared very much about this issue of wealth inequality. Now Long was himself a lawyer. He came from some money, his father was a successful farmer, so it wasn't like he was from the lower classes, but he had a bad experience. He bought an oil well, and then it started pumping oil, and he couldn't sell the oil. Long became a failure. He couldn't sell it because Standard Oil refused to buy his oil, and he had no other way to bring the oil to a market, to refining and the rest of it. And so Long became resentful against these big corporations that ran Louisiana. It was personal. That's right. In some ways, like some of us feel today about big corporations that we think run our lives, we think about this in ways similar to Long. When you look at wealth inequality, 1929, about 23.5% of the wealth was controlled by the top 1%. So Long was wrong in his stats. Today, how much wealth does the top 1% control? About 22% of all the wealth in the country is controlled by the top 1%. So we're right there with the pre-New Deal income inequality and wealth inequality. So this is a really current issue. What Roosevelt does? Wait. Yes, go ahead. You'll be long. You'll be long. What is a demagogue? Okay. What do you have to do to qualify as a demagogue, and what got him assassinated? He must have done it. You want to qualify? No. Okay, so the definition of a demagogue is somebody who appeals to the basic kind of emotions and prejudices of voters. Instead of telling them the facts, maybe put in a few lies or at a minimum, attack the kind of people these voters hate in their guts, right, in their emotions. So that's what Long did, right? He attacked the wealthy. He attacked immigrants. Now, I can't find any evidence that Long was a racist, but he was definitely ethnocentric. He left that to Father Coughlin. And his, yeah, I mean, Long doesn't say it explicitly like Father Coughlin does, but he's anti-Semitic in his heart. And these, you know, these attacks on financiers and kind of the merchants of death referring to arms dealers, these are almost always references to Jewish population. How do you deal with the African-Americans? Yeah. I have no evidence that Long was actually a racist in that way, although he's from Louisiana, so one would assume in that time period that you're dealing in a climate of segregation in Louisiana, so I think he probably was a racist. So I remember this old slogan about him. You can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time and he got assassinated for trying to do that. So Long, I mean, he fools a lot of people a lot of the time. He became, he was governor and then became elected senator. There's one point. So Long, Long was a man of the people, but he was not a man of the democratic process. Okay, so in that way, I suppose he's reminiscent some of Donald Trump, who is a guy who doesn't know much about the Constitution, would really like to make decisions by himself, doesn't really have much respect for the democratic process. So Long at one point orders out the National Guard to surround the Capitol when they're not doing the, the legislature's not doing his bidding. At another point, he goes to the, to the Louisiana Supreme Court and has the lieutenant governor removed. He accuses him of trying to do a coup d'etat. So politics in Louisiana, it's blood sport. You said that Long and Coglan went against Roosevelt. They turned on him. That's right. They did. Well, how did that happen and what was the result of it? Well, so Roosevelt, they felt like Roosevelt was too conservative in his proposals and his solutions in the first two years. So then they come to the national scene and Roosevelt and his advisors recognized it. They say, hey, these guys, Roosevelt at one point refers to, it's, it's not Father Coglan, but Huey Long and then General Douglas MacArthur is the two most dangerous men in America. This is Long before World War II. Yeah, but MacArthur's got this big head and everything. So, so Long and Coglan, they, they developed this national platform. At one point, Huey Long has 7.5 million people who belong to his, this national organization called the Share Our Wealth Plan. That's a lot of people. A lot of people. Yes, that's right. A whole population of the country was less than a hundred million. Yeah, it's a little over a hundred million at that point. So this is an enormous constituency and Roosevelt becomes frightened by this. He thinks, okay, it's very clear what, what, where this is going Long is going to run for the Democratic nomination in 1936 and he could beat Roosevelt. So what Roosevelt does is he begins to move leftward in his politics. And I think we talked about this last time. He creates the new deal with the Wagner Act, the, the, the WPA and the Social Security Act. Well, on one hand, you got to give them credit for moving, you know, changing the position. On the other hand, you got to, you have to give those guys credit for pushing them. Well, that's right. It might not have happened if they had not pushed him. You might not like Huey Long for his demagoguery or father Coglan for his anti-Semitism. On the other hand, they did push. In that way, their, kind of, their, their usefulness, their utility was in pushing Roosevelt into the new deal that, you know, has, has really blessed this nation today with all of its benefits. I mean, is it, is it true? I mean, just, it's a one little tiny question. You know, it was not all that successful through the thirties. It got really the new deal. Oh. It got really successful when we, you know, we got into war. So query whether, you know, I mean, the popular wisdom, the conventional wisdom is that Roosevelt saved us in that period. Yeah. Did he, did the new deal save us in that period? Yes. I think Roosevelt saved, let's say it like this, Roosevelt saved capitalism, okay, and prevented us from going down the route of fascism. Because if Huey Long had gotten elected, he might have been tempted by the, by seeing what had been developing in Europe by the development of fascism in Europe and, and tried to take more power than, you know, than the constitutional loud and, and becoming a dictator. So he, so yes, Roosevelt saved capitalism. If you like capitalism, Roosevelt saved capitalism in the 1930s. But he also created another country, a different country. Absolutely. He put things into the mix that really profoundly changed us. And I submit this, I see if you agree, that all of that, that period from the time he was first elected to the, to the war, was essentially, serendipitously preparing us for the war. We came together. No, I mean, no, I mean, so, so by 1937, 38, those components of the New Deal were in place. And actually they were quite successful. If we hadn't had a war, the works program, the WPA was putting lots of people back to put, what, 8 million people back to work. So, so no, the, the, the New Deal was successful on its own. Now the, the war, the war helped the economy recover completely. That's certainly true. And the war allowed the Roosevelt administration to put in place what we call a liberal regulatory state. Okay. So, so, Roosevelt, the Roosevelt administration then put regulations on capitalism. So what had happened in the 1920s with the stock market crash and with, you know, kind of out of, out of control capitalists wouldn't happen again. Okay. So that was a good thing. Now many of those regulations were done away with in the period between 1980 and 2000. And so we had a great recession happen because we allowed capitalism to get out of control again. I mean that my, you know, what I'm trying to get at here is that if you're going to have a capitalist system, you need to put brackets on it. Yeah. You need to put limits on it. Regulations. So if you treat this discussion and one of the things, and you need to redistribute every so often as capitalism gives capital to those who already have capital. Right. It perpetuates itself. That's right. That way it becomes quite dangerous on its own without some redistribution. As an historian who looks at transformations, certainly, you know, what you're talking about in the 30s is a major transformation. Oh, this is a big trend. It's a saving grace kind of transformation. That's right. So when did it end? Right. And what followed that transformation? Good question, Jay. You'd make a good historian. All transformations end, but some transformations don't end so well. Right. So what we call the New Deal Coalition comes together in the election of 1936. It consists of workers. It consists of urbanites. It consists of immigrants, African-Americans. These last two categories had mostly voted Republican before that, especially African-Americans. You know, the party of Lincoln, they had voted consistently on the Republican side until Roosevelt, who offered them the New Deal wasn't a great deal, but at least it was something. It helped raise African-American hopes and livelihoods as well as white folks. So we have this New Deal that comes together and this Coalition that comes together. And then in the 1960s, things start coming apart.  The re-emergence of the Klan around the time of Woodrow Wilson and thereafter into the 1920s. And that's when Trump's father was arrested as a member of the Klan or participating in a Klan event. So it sounds to me like before Roosevelt, it was a re-emergence of this kind of white supremacy thing that came, you know, in the days of the Coppett beggars and re-emerged and it was on the Republican side of things and the African-American community was saying, wait a minute, this isn't really our cup of tea? No, not on the Republican side actually. So the Klan re-emerges in the Midwest, but it has its real strength in the South, which is solidly Democrat. It's not Republican. So they left the Democratic Party. So no, no, they stay in the Democratic Party until the 1960s when the civil rights movement becomes an issue for the Democratic Party. The Democrats decide, you know, we're going to support civil rights. And that's when Southerners who are frightened by civil rights and believe that their system, the system where everyone has their own place, right, blacks on the bottom and whites on the top, is the right system. The segregationist system is the right system. They don't want to give up any political power to African-Americans. What I hear you saying is that this transformation changed. It was a big switch in the 1960s. In the 1960s. It wasn't just the civil rights movement, but that was part of it. Emblematic, yeah. And then it was Brown versus Board of Education, which is now, I mean it's so interesting Brown versus Board of Education is like withered, like vestigial already, and there are attacks on, believe it or not, like Roe v. Ways, there are attacks on Brown versus Board of Education. Yeah, I mean, yes. 1954. Yes. 1954. Sorry. Brown versus Board of Education. But that was just the beginning of the civil rights movement. So in the 1960s, you have the New Deal Coalition fracturing. And this is always the issue with coalitions. We assume that a decent political coalition, if it's well done and there's good leadership and they've got good issues, it will last for a generation, 32 to 40 years. And that's about what the New Deal Coalition lasts. And it comes apart in part because the Democratic Party embraces the civil rights movement and the South and Southerners begin to leave the Democratic Party. It also comes with Ronald Reagan's attack on government. We want to get the government off our backs and New Deal Liberals are associated with government. They're also associated. There's Ronald Reagan right there. Yeah. Yeah. And so New Deal Liberals are also associated with what we call Eastern elites. And so this kind of elitism is attacked by both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. So we've got a picture of Nixon as well. Here's Richard Nixon. Okay. What a wonderful post that is. That's true. He's pure Nixon. Anyway, that's Richard Nixon. So both Nixon and Reagan attack the New Deal Coalition very effectively. Really especially Nixon with his idea of the silent majority. He's opposing this to Liberals and the student movement and the hippies in the Democratic Party. And he's very successful at this. And then Reagan comes in the early 19th. It was time. The country was moving conservative. It was time for that. It became more conservative in part because savvy politicians like Nixon and Reagan actually used these issues to bring people into the Republican Party. So yeah, it became more conservative that way. And then of course Ronald Reagan in 1980 wins election. And what he does is he takes lunch pail Democrats, working class Democrats and he moves them. He gets 54% of working class Democrats to vote for him unprecedented. And this means that the New Deal is going to fall apart because the base of the New Deal was with folks who had voted for Roosevelt because he had supported them. He had supported unions. He had supported putting them back to work. And so the New Deal comes apart at that point. And then you have the development of this new, the rise of conservatism and that really hits. And that's still today. Well, that's dominated the political system until today actually. So what you have is when you measure liberals and conservatives, the percentage of the population, liberal percentage of the population, conservative. At the height of conservatism in the 1990s and yeah, really 1990s when you have Bill Clinton who's a Democrat but moves to the right as a Democrat, right, embraces conservative issues because he knows he can't get reelected as a liberal Democrat. At that point you have about 40% of the country is conservative and about 20% of the country is liberal. Today, about 35% of the country is conservative and about 26% of the country is liberal. So we've seen a steady decline in the number of conservatives and a steady increase in the number of liberals. I think probably it's the Iraq war and then the great recession really pushes people to think that hey, the government has to do something about this. Maybe the government does have a role in solving these problems. And so today actually liberalism has actually seen this resurgence. It's not so bad to be called a liberal. Is Trump involved in that? I mean, it seems to me that Trump has done things that would make ordinary human being God-fearing people more liberal. Yes, certainly Trump has accelerated this trend towards Americans turning more towards liberalism rather than conservatives. So we're on transformations. We're on transformations and here we are and I submit to you that Trump is either reflective or creating a transformation as never before in this country except the Civil War, except the Civil War because what we have now is a transformation that actually regularly, daily attacks the Constitution willfully. I wouldn't say the transformation is such that we've never had before except the Civil War. This moment in the history of the country. But what we do have is we have a president who is a demagogue who has been willing to use the most unsavory issues in the most unsavory way to bring people yet their emotion at their gut level into into his ranks. OK, and and so and and Trump as he has no rules, which is interesting and could mean this could mean that Trump can form a new political coalition with his ideas, right? Isolationism, tariffs, rejection of globalization, what he calls America Firstism, right? There was an America First movement in the 1930s, which ultimately was unsuccessful, but it was there has Trump been able to put together a new coalition, which would allow that to happen. Anti-immigrant coalition, when you say a new coalition, you say essentially a new party, that doesn't mean it has a new label. No, no, it's actually still the Republican Party. It's just been gutted and replaced. That's right. And I think that's isn't that what's happening? No, so so the thing is in order to have a viable political coalition, you have to be successful and you have to gain a majority of, you know, the votes. So the problem that Trump has is he's a very unpleasant character. A lot of Americans are turned off by his immorality and other personal issues, right? And his terrible attacks. And so and and and there are more Americans now who don't think some of these these issues that he's brought in these very kind of right wing issues, not at the center of the electorate, but very right wing kind of a strident issues, you know, abortion and, you know, and keeping all, you know, refugees out of the country in any way possible. But isn't that really part of a demagogues approach? What you do is you divide people, you create hate, no, that's true. You create racism. That's true. And then that makes you more powerful. Yeah, but the problem is that Trump has not gotten to the point where he can accumulate enough of a coalition to actually win an election, another election. OK, he didn't have a majority. Yeah, well, he didn't have a majority of votes in 2016, right? He's going to have. I can't see a pathway to Trump winning the next election. OK, the problem is that the what he's put together is a coalition of the minority of the right wing minority. And what he's done is begin to exclude a number of moderate Republicans who have to decide, OK, and I stick with Trump. No, I'm going to have to find somewhere else to vote or I'm not going to vote. And so what what really is the opportunity in this political transformation is for a Democrat to step in a liberal to step in and say, hey, I've got issues you could get behind and we're going to we're going to stop Trump in his tracks. And, you know, the polling right now shows that if if the election was held today, Joe Biden would win the primary and he would win the election. Wow, I was saying something by 68 points over Trump. But you know, and this is a this is a page out of Churchill's book. So history, professor, studying American history, and I really love that. I think it's so important. So glad to know about these. Making me happy. Well, it's really important. How can you possibly understand the present in American history without knowing all the things you've been talking about over these last few months? So to take a page, a question out of Churchill's book, you know, in terms of transformations, you know, from a historical point of view, OK, are we in terms of transformations? Are we at the end of the beginning? Or are we at the beginning of the end of the transformation that you have identified? I think we're right in the middle of it. Good answer. I don't you know, I think Obama began this with his argument for change. And but he didn't know how to culminate it. Honestly, he made some mistakes. He could have actually been a transformative leader like Roosevelt. But he was too conventional in the way he thought about the electorate, I think. And so I think we're right in the middle of it and it's not decided yet. But honestly, I think the way the trends are going, it favors a more liberal approach than the previous transfer.  Right. But but as any historian will tell you, in order to understand the continuum, you must also study the present. We must all also study the present. So so I'm the type of historian who believes that we have to take history, the lessons of history into the present. OK, so there are many historians who say, no, you shouldn't be doing that. You know, you should just study the past for the past. But I'm not one of those. I believe that the past offers all kinds of lessons to us in the present. And so, you know, the one of a couple of lessons, OK, first lesson, hang in there, OK, because it's not over. Right. And there's a there's an electorate out there. We still have our democracy hang in there. OK. The other lesson is be persistent. Don't give up. There are going to be some tough times in the next few years. But be persistent, stick with your goals and and and go for those goals. Be well organized, be willing to take risks and be persistent. Sooner we can continue this conversation. John David and the better I'm going to feel because we can test on whether those lessons are OK, are valid or are being learned. Yeah, that's right. John David and history professor, H.E.H.P.U. Thank you so much. You're welcome, Jay. It's history lens. Yes, right. You could be here.


We have been day in and day out reading regarding the investigation, inquiry and trial. But is there any difference between this two? Because once we say investigation also means it is more or less like an investigation. But what is the difference between them? When does the commencement and conclusion of investigation, inquiry and trial actually is the today's legal journey which would be taken across by Justice Sunil Thomas, a former judge of Kerala High Court. And those who have been connected with the Honourable CLC would have seen that Justice Sunil Thomas takes very neat areas which are not being taken up in the routine. And whenever we discuss him and make a request to him, he says that give some topic which interests the public at large and which is normally not carried out, professionally and personally everybody can understand the legal journey and how they can enrich themselves. In this journey of legal empowerment, we are indebted to Justice Sunil Thomas and thank you sir for accepting our advice. I'm extremely happy to once again join you in the program organized by CLC. The topic that has been allowed to me today is investigation, inquiry and trial. When does it commence and when does it come to an end? So my endeavor in this session will be to just emphasize on the concepts of investigation, inquiry and trial and also to analyze as to whether there are three separate compartments. You know that these three aspects investigation, inquiry and trial are the three important distinct steps of editable prosecution. So whether we should understand whether is it investigation separate watertight compartment and then is it inquiry like that and also trial. And also whether on completion of investigation whether inquiry starts and on completion of inquiry whether the trial starts, is it so distinct separate entities. As you all know, the term trial is not defined under the code of group procedure. We will be emphasizing on the existing act and we are not referring to the Bairdhya Nagarik Suresh Sambhila of 2020. This is said to be coming to force but so but the principles remain the same. On the other hand the term investigation and the term inquiry both are defined under the code of group procedure. 2-H defines what is an investigation. Investigation as the term denotes is every proceeding for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or any other person interested, authorized by the magistrate under the act. So the definition is very clear. Definition speaks about the person who is to conduct the investigation. It is either a police officer or a person authorized by the magistrate. The object of investigation is to collect evidence for a criminal person or a successful criminal prosecution. That puts the second definition is very clear. On the other hand, if you refer to the definition of inquiry what we find is that inquiry is every proceeding under the act. Other conducted by a magistrate or a court other than a trial. Which we can say that the definition is an exclusive definition which excludes or it excludes trial but does not specifically indicate as to what exactly is an inquiry. But the law is always settled as what is meant by investigation when does it come in, when does it come to an end, when does the inquiry start, when does it come to an end and when does the trial commence. Regarding investigation which is the first aspect of every criminal prosecution. It starts with the provisions under chapter 12 of the code of group procedure which deals with investigation and also information to the police and the investigation. The crucial section is section 154 CRPC which deals with giving first information to the police and we normally call it as the first information report. Section 154 enables an officer in charge of a police station to record information obtained by him in relation to the congressional facts. That is the first part of the investigation process that sets in normally or broadly the investigative process, investigation process. The scope of section 154 and what is the significance of it is dealt with by the Supreme Court in one decision, Sheikh Hazi Elias Tabarak who is the state of Bihar, 1972-4 SCC 773. According to the Supreme Court the first information report can have two aspects can be looked up from two angles. The first one is the process of from the viewpoint of the first informant. It says that the first information report as far as the first informant is concerned that sets the investigative missionary in motion. According to the Supreme Court it can also be looked up from the angle of the investigating agency as the collection of materials regarding the incident or regarding the cognizable offense which will enable the investigative agency to go ahead with the investigation so that the first information obtained is so valid so it is significant so as to set in the investigative mission. So that gives an indication as to how when does an investigation start, investigation commence. There is one more decision which is the latest business of the Supreme Court on this point. I will give you the citation that is Naseer bin Abu Bakr F5. Naseer bin Abu Bakr F5 who is the state of Maharashtra 2022-06 SCC page 308. Dealing with the scope of first information Supreme Court said that it is the line of decisions is well settled to the effect that the process of investigation commenced with the FIA, lodging of the FIA. But Supreme Court in this case, in Naseer bin's case, went a step ahead and said that mere lodging of the FIA cannot be treated as the commencement of the investigation process. But first to the lodging of the FIA, the investigative missionary said in motion when the police officer proceeds, there is something in furtherance of the FIA and proceeds to the sale of the clearance, arrest the accused or record the statement. So that mere lodging, what the Supreme Court clarified was that though a law is settled that the investigative process commences with the lodging of FIA, there must be some step in furtherance of lodging of FIA by way of proceeding to the scene of occurrence or recording the statement of the witnesses or arresting the accused. That only sets the investigative missionary in motion. So this is the law. And once it is set in motion, the officer in charge of the police station goes to conducts the local inspection, questions the witnesses, prepares the mahasar, arrests the accused and on completion of investigation, files a file to put on the section 173 of the CFS. Broadly, this brings the investigation part to an end. Under the CPC, there may not be so much complication on this aspect as to the commencement of the investigation and the conclusion of it, though even after, even after filing the final report, there may be instance of further investigation so that investigation may have to continue under orders of the court. That's a different aspect. But when we go to other penal provisions, we find some difficulty. I will take you to one decision of the Supreme Court which specifically dealt with this issue under the other statutory provisions, other penal laws. That classic decision is state of UP versus Durga Prasad, state of UP versus Durga Prasad, 1975, 3 SCC 210, state of UP versus Durga Prasad, 1975, 3 SCC 210. That was a case where one person was found in possession of goods relating to items, articles belonging to the railway. He was arrested under the Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act of 1966 on an allegation that he was found in possession of articles belonging to the railway. The officer in charge questioned him, recovered the article from him and conducted an inquiry under Section 8-1 of the Railway Property Act 1966. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. All the statements were got signed by the investigation officer. And on completion of investigation, the report was also laid, complete was laid before the magistrate. Accused fails the trial. In the course of trial, all the statements recorded by the investigation officer, Rivelle Police, were introduced in evidence. Relying on it, he was found guilty. He was convicted. This was challenged before the high court. The view of the high court was that if statement of the witnesses were recorded in the course of examination of the witnesses, their statements were recorded and they were got signed by the police. So it amounted to recording of a statement under Section 162 of the CRPC and the trial court also relied on such statements. According to the high court, it was hit by the bar under Section 162 since signed statements were taken from the witnesses and those materials were relied on by the trial court for convicting the accused. The court held that it was an improper procedure with evidence was recorded in violation of the provisions of the code of rule procedure in violation of Section 162 and he was acquitted. That was challenged before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court in the state of UP versus Durga Prasad relied on the several early decisions. What the Supreme Court held was that an inquiry was conducted under Section 81 of the Rainway Properties Act. Such an inquiry was followed by the various other proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that under the Rainway Property Act there was no provision for laying a fine report by the authority under Section 173 and he also does not file a report under Section 191B of the CRPC that the agency which recovered the item and recovered the statement and conducted the inquiry under Section 81 of the Rainway Property Act was not in fact conducting an investigation as contemplated under the rule procedure so that the bar under Section 162 will not apply. The court said that in such cases the trial court was justified in relying on the signed statements of the witnesses and arriving at a conclusion. The court also said apart from other signed statements there were other materials incriminating materials based on which the accused could have been convicted. So that what the Supreme Court held in that case was that the inquiry conducted by under Section 81 of the Rainway Property Act was not an investigation under as contemplated under the code of rule procedure so that though it has got some trappings of an investigation as provided under the CRPC that did not exactly satisfy the test of an investigation so thereby the conviction was sustained. So there are some differences in the case of other statutes in relation to the process of inquiry or investigation conducted by such authorities. Supreme Court referred to some of its early decisions which I have also referred to one of the important decisions which the Supreme Court relied on was an earlier decision in State of Punjab versus Barkat Rao, State of Punjab versus Barkat Rao. AR 1962 SC 276 in that inquiry was conducted under the provisions of the Land Customs Act of 1924. The Supreme Court in that decision helped that the inquiry conducted by the investigative agent by the competent authority under the act was not conducting an investigation under the CRPC so that they would not be considered as an investigation. That decision in State of Punjab versus Barkat Rao was followed by another Supreme Court decision in Raja Ram Jay Swal versus State of Bihar. Raja Ram Jay Swal versus State of Bihar AR 1964 SC 824. Raja Ram Jay Swal versus State of Bihar AR 1964 SC 828. That was a prosecution under the Bihar and Odisha Excise Act. The Supreme Court followed the earlier decision in Barkat Rao's case and said that the steps taken by the authority under the Excise Act was not conducting an investigation as conducted later under the code of court procedure. Yet another decision of the Supreme Court on the same point was but to Jyoti Savad but to be ADKU but to Jyoti J-O-T-I Jyoti Savad versus State of Mysore 1966 SCR 658 that was a proceeding under the Central Excise and Salt Act. The same view as laid down by the Supreme Court earlier in Barkat Rao was followed and made a distinction between an inquiry or investigation conducted under the such Excise Act from a criminal prosecution and investigation conducted under the CRP. The next important decision on this point is a constitutional bench decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Mehta who is the State of West Bengal AR 1970 SC 940 AR 1970 SC 940. The same view as followed in Barkat Rao and the 62 decisions were followed by the constitutional bench under the C Customs Act. So that was a prosecution under the C Customs Act. So these were the three decisions laid out by the Supreme Court in Durga Prasad's case referred to in Supreme Durga Prasad's case. So all of all those decisions laid out the same proposition under the other statutes even though certain inquiry or an investigation may be conducted by the authorities it may not be strict or censor be transferred as an investigation under the Supreme Court. Then comes the latest decision of the Supreme Court in under the NDPS Act in Tophan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu Tophan Singh TOFAN Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu AR 2020 5592. That was the case where one person was prosecuted under section 67 of the Narcotic Drug Set Psychopathic Substance Act. The question came up was one of the questions that came up with the Supreme Court was whether the Confession Statement recorded by the officer under the NDPS Act would amount to a confession as recorded under the Kodakurva Teacher. Incidentally the question whether it forms part of the investigating machinery was also taken up. Supreme Court said deviating from all the earlier decisions held that a statement recorded a confession recorded under section under the NDPS Act would strictly not be advisable and bar under the Kodakurva procedure and Indian Evidence Act will apply. Then comes two important decisions of the Supreme Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act PMLA Act. Those two latest decisions are under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act or Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary versus Union of India. Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary versus Union of India 2022 SCC online SC 929 Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary versus Union of India 2022 SCC online SC 929 page 929 the second decision is on the same under the same act that's in Chandil Balaji Chandil Balaji versus state represented by the director 2023 SCC online page 934 I'll repeat the citation Chandil Balaji versus state represented by the director 2023 SCC online SC 934 along with the various other issues involved the question as to whether what is the status of inquiry or investigation conducted by the authorities under the PMLA Act and whether the bar under the CRPC or under the Evidence Act may apply. What the Supreme Court held in both the decisions was that under the PMLA Act the main objective of prostituting a person and conducting an inquiry or inquiry or investigation under the PMLA was not exclusively for the purpose of prostituting the most crucial aspect of the act is to ensure that or to prohibit money laundering and for that purpose various mechanisms are contemplated under the statute one is prostitution the other one is attachment of the property which forms part of the tainted money so that multifarious activities are taken and conducted under the under the PMLA Act so that materials may be gathered in the course of inquiry and investigation by the investigating agency and all those materials may not be intended to achieve the object of prosecution so that what the Supreme Court ultimately held was that under the PMLA Act the investigative machinery may be gathering information may be gathering materials may be gathering evidence that is not the sole for the sole purpose of prostituting the accused so that the court said it may be for the purpose of confining or confirming an attachment of the property that does not mean that it is a material gather for the purpose of prosecution or in other words the Supreme Court laid down a distinction between materials gathered in the course of investigation for the purpose of prosecution and materials gathered in the for the other purposes or ancillary purposes contemplated under the PMLA Act thereby made a distinction and Supreme Court said both the mechanisms may go ahead may collect the same materials but their objects are totally different one object of one missionary may be to prosecute the accused the other may be for other purposes of prevention of money laundering so both travel together both collect the same materials but the objectives are two different things so that it laid down a distinction between an investigative machinery and gathering of information for other purposes contemplated under the PMLA Act so one thing there that you are clear with reference to the decisions which I referred to now from Durga Prasad's case till Tophan's case and thereafter Shendil Balaji's case the only lone case that stands apart seems to be Tophan Singh's case justification is also there because under the MDPS Act which which was dealt with by Tophan in Tophan Singh's case it was solely for the purpose of prosecuting the accused in all other statutes which were basically involving fiscal aspects under the SALT Act, under the exercise Act, under the customs Act or even under the PMLA Act. Prosecutional accused is only one part of the object of the statute probably that must be the reason why the Supreme Court made a distinction in Tophan Singh's case when it was dealing with NDPS Act so this gives a clear idea so that even though under the under the CRP issue investigation is done after after a registering an FIR and normally concludes with an investigation now with the file file file report it may not be exactly the same under other statutes which may be fiscal statutes or other statutes like NDPS Act, like PMLA Act, like the C customs Act or under the SALT Act this we use some distinction so that gives an idea regarding the investigation part then we go to the next topic inquiry. Inquiry is defined under section 2 G of the Act of the Court which defines inquiry as a inquiry conducted by a magistrate or by a judge other than a trial. So normally we make a broad distinction between an investigation and an inquiry. Normally it is said that process of inquiry starts with the laying of the file report it goes on till the process of trial starts so that when you compare investigation with an inquiry what you find is that inquiry investigation is not a judicial process whereas an inquiry is a judicial process. Investigation is done by the police whereas inquiry is conducted by the court of a magistrate. Another distinction can be that the purpose of an investigation is for collection of evidence. The object of inquiry as contemplated under the court of court procedure is to complete the steps for trial and to ensure that there are materials have been gathered for a successful prosecution or that no person has been wrongly implicated. So it is a broad inquiry conducted by the magistrate or by the court and the relevant approach is chapter 24 of the court of court procedure which deals with inquiries and trial. I will just refer two decisions one of the Supreme Court the other one by the Patna High Court regarding the scope of inquiry. The first decision that I will be referring to is Rithilal Bhanchi Mithani Rithilal R-A-T-I-L-A-L Rithilal Bhanchi Mithani M-I-T-H-A-N-I versus State of Maharashtra and others. The citation is AR 1979 SC 94. The Supreme Court gave broad outline regarding what is meant by an inquiry under the court of court procedure. It helped that an inquiry under the court procedure court is not for the purpose of investigation and normally it starts after the lane of the charge shoot. It continues till the charge is framed. The other decision is Rabindra Rai versus State of Bihar 1984 criminal law journal 1984 criminal law journal 1412 by the Patna High Court. That also gives you a broad outline regarding the scope of inquiry. Now if you go through the provisions of the CRPC though the term inquiry is defined you will find about five types of inquiry contemplated under the court of court procedure. Five types of broad types of inquiry. The first type is the inquiry as contemplated under section 2G which I refer to just now. When you refer to section 159 of the CRPC it also refers to an inquiry when a report is obtained by the magistrate under section 159 of the CRPC, 157 of the CRPC. The magistrate is empowered to conduct an inquiry or a cause to conduct an inquiry invoking section 159 of the CRPC. That will not fall strictly within the ambit of an inquiry as contemplated under section 2G. That stands something apart. Another type of inquiry contemplated under the other types of inquiries contemplated under the court of court procedure are probably an inquiry under section 125 of the CRPC regarding maintenance to be paid. Strictly it is not in relation to an offense. It starts apart court also conducts an inquiry records takes evidence also. Another inquiry which you can find slightly different from the one contemplated under the normal principle is an inquiry conducted under section furnishing bond under section 107 CRPC, 108 CRPC and 109 CRPC. That's a different type of inquiry. The last category of inquiry which is contemplated under the CRPC are inquiries conducted by the district magistrate or subdivision magistrate under section 176 CRPC, 133 proceedings and 145 proceedings. These are strictly not in relation to inquiry conducted under the CRPC but when they start strictly fall within an inquiry conducted under 2G maybe that way we can make a broad distribution. Now we go to yet another term which always come across when we deal with the inquiry that is the inquiry not the inquiry under the section 1 of section 2G but an inquiry ENPUIROI. I have come across several books where the term is intermingly used and the term inquiry is not defined as such under the CRPC. It contemplates only an inquiry but you will find the term inquiry distinctly used under several other statutes. One typical example can be section 17A of the Provincial Correction Act. Section 17A of the Provincial Correction Act says that no inquiry, inquiry or investigation shall be conducted under the Provincial Correction Act unless prior sanction is obtained in relation to a decision taken by a government servant in certain cases that the section 17A of the Provincial Correction Act specifically refers to the term inquiry and not an inquiry. Both the terms are used inquiry inquiry and lastly investigation. Another statute where you will find the term inquiry used is under section 67 of the NDPS Act. Strangely, you will find the term inquiry is used under section 67 of the NDPS Act and inquiry used in section 53A of the NDPS Act and this was the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in Tofansin's case. The purpose of these two distinct words used in section 53A as well as under section 67 was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Tofansin's case in detail. What is the purpose of using the term inquiry and the term inquiry which is the term used in the CRPC? This is the Indira Banerjee who gave a minority decision in that judgment also specifically referred one paragraph on this aspect and what does an inquiry mean? Referring to a concise dictionary, the Supreme Court said that inquiry means to ask whereas inquiry has contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure and also used in several statutes as INQIRY means to conduct an investigation. Both have similar terms but in the Tofansin's case, the majority decision as well as the minority decision dealt with this distinction and said that the terms inquiry and inquiry have been contra-distantly used in the NDPS Act with purpose and that was the base on which one aspect of the decision was dealt with. So keep that in mind just for your information. Then we go to the last part of the topic that is when does the trial start? The commencement or regarding the commencement of trial there is almost a consistent view that it starts with laying of the final report. The trial starts with the laying of the final report and you all know that fourth specific chapters are provided under the CRPC. Chapter 18 which deals with trial before the sessions go. Chapter 19 which deal with trial of war cases by magistrate. Chapter 20 which deals with trial of war summons cases by the magistrate and lastly chapter 21 which deals with summary procedure, summary trial. The normal concept is that in the case of a trial before sessions go and trial before warring cases under chapter 19 trial commences with the charges being framed. In the case of trial by summons case when the accused is called upon to say whether he believes guilty or not and in the case of summary procedure when the summary of the charges went over to the accused. I will take you to few decisions of the Supreme Court were in the question of commencement of trial was consulant by the Supreme Court. The first decision and the most important decision I will say is in Hardeep Singh who is the state of Punjab that's the constitutional bench decision of the five judges of the Supreme Court. Hardeep Singh who is the state of Punjab 2014 3 SCC 92 it affirmed that trial commences with the framing of the charges. That was the first most important decision on the topic then comes a 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinu by Hari Bhai Malaguya. Vinu Bhai Hari Bhai Malaguya who is the state of Gujarat 2019 SCC online 2019 SCC online 3446 I'm sorry 1346 1346 the Supreme Court was reading with the question of further investigation. Supreme Court said normally further investigation can be ordered only before the trial commences and incidentally held the trial commences with the framing of the charges. It was in that context the question where as to when the trial starts trial commences was dealt with by the Supreme Court. The next decision on the point is a 2017 decision in Amrita Bhai Amrita Bhai Shampu Bhai Patel versus Subhan Bhai Kanthi Bhai Patel 2017 4 SCC 1 double 7 the same point trial commences with the framing of the charges. Then another decision of the same point which I referred this is which I referred to earlier was in Rithilal Banji Mithaini which I mentioned earlier Rithilal Banji Mithaini. One more decision which he suddenly referred to the commencement of trial is in the common cost case common cost versus union of India a year 1979 SC 1539 and it is and the process of trial as we all know comes to an end on the pronouncement of rejections. So these are the broad outlines which I wanted to emphasize the investigation the commencement of investigation and the conclusion of it the commencement of inquiry and the conclusion and the commencement of trial and the conclusion of it broadly we can say that the distinction is so clear but at same time aspects of inquiry and as well as and investigation they slightly overlap otherwise it is almost clear so these are the topics that I am expected to discuss with you so Mr. Vigas now it is open for discussion now. Now one question that has come up is yes please Mr. Vigas. Yes sir I am just checking it out it is on the chat also. The primary inquiry under Lilladha Gumairi's case. Yes and I am checking it out on the YouTube. In Lilladha Gumairi what the speedboat said was that normally on getting an information under the regard to a cognizable offense the officer in charge of the police is bound to conduct the issue register FIA but at the same time a very limited scope for an inquiry there are also the terms used this INQ inquiry has contemplated and limited inquiry that is only to ensure only to ensure if the preliminary material the primary materials are not available to completely disclose commission of a cognizable offense a very limited inquiry is possible and the Supreme Court also said that there are other instances when the court when the inquiry officer will have some freedom some leave ways to go for a preliminary inquiry that may be a case under the Provincial Corruption Act. So the scope as laid down in Supreme Court is very very limited in relation to the primary inquiry in the solution and virtually it is a primary inquiry before the inquiry investigation starts that's how it has been clarified in Lilladha Gumairi's case. So any other doubt Mr. Vigas? No sir I was just checking it out it's not relevant on the YouTube there's one query but it is not with the topic today okay okay so thank you sir for sharing your knowledge and thank despite this issue you have been kind enough to share your knowledge thank you everyone stay safe stay blessed thank you thank you so much to all of you


Rabbit antithymicite globulins, RATGs, are currently used as an induction therapy to prevent acute rejection, AR, following kidney transplantation. However, their use has been limited due to potential side effects such as opportunistic infections and de novo post-transplant cancer. Recently, researchers have found that takrolimus plus everolimus, rather than takrolimus plus mycophenolic acid, can be used as maintenance immunosuppressants while reducing the risk of CMV infection. Additionally, research suggests that RATGs can be used in combination with mammalian target of rapamycin, ENTER, inhibitors to further reduce the risk of AR. This article was authored by Paolo Malvatsi, Thomas Jove, and Lionel Rosting.


I'm here for the childhood cancer awareness that you had and to, I guess, for everybody to get to know each other and talk about our kids and to remember my son, Phillip. He was diagnosed in 2012 with medialoblastoma, it's a brain cancer. He was eight years old when he was diagnosed. He passed away February 14th, 2015. And before things got bad, he was really active, fine, you wouldn't know if he was sick and then he just started having seizures and they couldn't stop the seizures. So we had to bring him home on hospice. There's only four, specifically four children, four types, four chemo drugs specifically made for children. And I think there are 30 types but they're made for adults that kids have to take. They're made for adults but the kids' body just, you know, they really can't. So even if kids get over their cancer, the chemo treatments make them, you know, have, I know with Phillip, if he would have lived, he would have been daft because of the chemo he took. And a lot of the chemo treatments can cause other types of cancers. So that's, you know, not only do you have to worry about the cancer, you have to worry about what the chemo does to him also. Ava was five years old and she was the most vibrant child I've had four children and Ava was the most feisty, most amazing, most lovely child I've ever had. And she was one of a kind, you know, there are no words to fully describe Ava, you just had to know her, she was a force to be reckoned with and when she was diagnosed with brain cancer it was a total surprise, a total shock, it was the last thing I expected for her to have, but she still thought it her way. She was going to do everything her way up until the end and she absolutely did. There's no other words for it. DIPG is a form, it's a brain tumor, but it is in the ponds of the brainstem. It's inoperable and it is fatal upon diagnosis. There is a less than one percent survival rate. Treatments for DIPG are over 35 years old with no advancements in the treatments within those 35 years. There's the basic radiation you can do, chemo and hope and pray for the best, honestly. You're living on borrowed time when you get that diagnosis. First sign that something was wrong with Ava was her eyes. Her eyes started turning inward and it would never move back and I knew something was wrong and we went to an eye doctor and he referred us to a large hospital, but by that time her left side of her body, she was dragging it. She couldn't use her left arm and it was stained, clenched up like this. Just watch your child, watch for any physical differences. Cancer will show itself and sometimes it takes a long, it took us two months before we found out what it was. It can take a while, but don't give up, no matter what the doctors tell you. If you follow up, push on and find out what's wrong with your baby because you don't know what you're facing. It could be that it could be curable and you could keep your child for the rest of your life or you could find out that you just have a little bit of time left. It's the truth. Just look up the symptoms. You always go with your gut if you feel like something ain't right no matter how many times you're told that they don't know or it's nothing. To just keep it up and to look up these, look up the symptoms online and really dig into it yourself because that's what happened with Phillip. I wish I would have knew that early morning vomiting was one of the symptoms, but I thought he was just trying to get out of going to school because he'd just be sick one time in the morning a couple of times of the week and I didn't know that that was one of the symptoms until it was, you know, and it can buy a lot of time and time's precious, you know, for treatment with these kids. Four percent of all national cancer funding goes to children. Just four percent. And with the kind of cancer Ava had, they deemed it rare. So how little of that four percent went to any kind of research for her? They deserve so much more. They deserve to not have to worry if they're going to live or die and no parent should have to make plans for their child's funeral. We need more. I was very blessed to be her mother and I'm very honored. God gave me that baby for six years. He had a plan that I didn't understand and I still don't understand, but I know where my daughter is. And I thank God every day that he gave me that for six years, even in the bad, I understand now what people say when I would have gave my life for hers and I still would today. So my prayers are for everybody going through this. I'm very sorry. And I pray that there is a cure one day and this is behind us and we never, nobody ever has to go through this. Eventually one day I hope that's how it will be.