Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh
[1961] INSC 208 (3 May 1961)
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR SUBBARAO, K.
MUDHOLKAR, J.R.
CITATION: 1962 AIR 63 1962 SCR (2) 694
CITATOR INFO :
D 1968 SC 1 (12) R 1970 SC1396 (5)
ACT:
Criminal Law-lmmoral traffic-Enactment for
Suppression Special Police officer appointed under the Act Investigation of
offences under the Act-Exclusion of powers of station-house
officer--"Dealing with offences under the Act"--Suppression of
immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), SS. 2(1),
8,13(2)--Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), SS. 5, 156, 551.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent was prosecuted for an offence
under S. 8 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956,
and a charge-sheet was presented before a First Class Magistrate in Delhi by a sub-inspector, who, as the officer in charge of the Police Station, had
investigated the case.
On an objection raised by the respondent, the
Magistrate quashed the charge-sheet on the ground that only the special police
officer appointed under the Act was competent to investigate the offences under
the Act.
Held, (Mudholkar, J., dissenting), that since
the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, created new
offences and prescribed the procedure for dealing with them, it was a complete
code in itself and to that extent the provisions of the Act must prevail over
those of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; that as the Act provided for the
appointment of a special police officer for dealing with offences under the Act
in the area within his jurisdiction, he and his assistant police officers were
the only persons who could investigate offences under the Act committed within
that area, and that police officers not specially appointed as special police
officers could not 695 investigate the offences under the Act even though they
were cognizable offences.
per Mudholkar, J.-A special police officer
appointed under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act,
1956, and empowered to deal with offences under the Act under S. 13(1) derives
the power to investigate into such offences not from that section but only
under s. 551. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even assuming that the words
"deal with offences". in s. 13(1) confer upon a special police
officer the power to investigate into an offence under the Act and present a
charge-sheet, the powers of an officer-in-charge of a station-house within
whose jurisdiction an offence under the Act has been committed are not excluded
by any of the provisions of the Act.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 220 of 1960.
Appeal from the judgment, and order dated August 4, 1960, of the Punjab "High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 31-D of 1960.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India,
R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
1961. May 3. The Judgment of K. Subba Rao and
Raghubar Dayal, JJ., was delivered by Raghubar Dayal, J. J. R. Mudholkar, J.,
delivered a separate judgment.
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-The only point for
consideration in this appeal, by certificate granted by the High Court of
Judicature at Punjab, is whether a police officer, who is neither a special
police officer under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act,
1956 (Act CIV of 1956), hereinafter called the Act, nor a police officer
subordinate to a special police officer, can validly investigate the offences
under the Act.
Ram Singh, respondent, was suspected of
having committed an offence under s. 8 of the Act. Jet Ram, Sub-Inspector, who
had not been appointed a special police officer by the State Government,
investigated the case and submitted the chargesheet to the Magistrate. The
Magistrate quashed the chargesheet, holding that the special police officer
alone was competent 696 to investigate the case and that Jet Ram could not have
investigated it. On revision by the State, the High Court agreed with the view
of the Magistrate and dismissed the revision. The High Court, however, granted
a certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution and hence this appeal by
the Delhi Administration.
The learned Solicitor-General, appearing for
the Delhi Administration, has submitted that in the absence of any definite
provision in the Act de-barring the police to exercise its powers with respect
to cognizable offences, the regular police can exercise those powers and that,
consequently there is nothing wrong in the Sub-Inspector of the regular police
making an investigation in a case under the Act. He also submits that the
special police officer is not competent to investigate offences, his powers
being confined to what may come within the expression 'dealing with offences
under the Act', and which expression, according to him, does not cover the
power to investigate into offences.
It is urged for the respondent that it is
only the special police officer who is competent to investigate the offences
under the Act.
Before dealing with the merits of the
question for determination, we may set out the object of the enactment and the
relevant provisions thereof. The Act was enacted in pursuance of the
International Convention signed at New York on the 9th day of May, 1950, for
the suppression of immoral traffic in women and girls. Section 2 deals with
definitions and, according to its clause (1), special police officer' means a
police officer appointed by or on behalf of the State Government to be in
charge of police duties within a specified area for the purposes of the Act.
Sections 3 to 9 create new offences and provide punishment for them. It is not
necessary to detail the nature of the offences.
Section 10 deals with release of convicted
persons convicted for certain offences, on probation of good conduct, in the
manner provided in sub-s. (1) of s. 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
hereinafter called 697 the Code, or with admonition as provided in sub-s. (1A)
of s. 562 of the Code. Certain provisions of ss. 562, 563 and 564 apply to such
cases.
The provisions of s. 11 of the Act correspond
to those of s. 565 of the Code.
Section 12 provides for taking security for
good behaviour from habitual offenders at the time of passing sentence on them
and thus correspond, in a way to the provisions of s.
106 of the Code. The provisions of ss. 112 to
126 of the Code apply to such a case.
Sections 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Act are as
follows:
"13. (1) There shall be for each area to
be specified by the State Government in this behalf, a special police officer
appointed by or on behalf of that Government for dealing with offences under
this Act in that area.
(2) The special police officer shall not be
below the rank of(a) an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the presidency
towns of Madras and Calcutta;
(b) a Superintendent of Police in the
presidency town of Bombay; and (c) a Deputy Superintendent of Police else
where.
(3) For the efficient discharge of his
functions in relation to offences under this Act(a) the special police officer
of an area shall be assisted by such number of subordinate police officers
(including women police officers wherever practicable) as the State Government
may think fit; and (b) the State Government may associate with the special
police officer a non-official advisory body consisting of not more than five leading
social welfare workers of that area (including women social welfare workers
wherever practicable) to advise him on questions of general importance
regarding the working of this Act.
14. Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure' 1898 (5 of 1898) any offence punishable under this
Act shall be deemed to 698 be a cognizable offence within the meaning of that
Code:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything
contained in that Code,(i) arrest without warrant may be made only by the
special police officer or under his direction or guidance, or subject to his
prior approval;
(ii) when the special police officer requires
any officer subordinate to him to arrest without warrant otherwise than in his
presence any person for an offence under this Act, he shall give that
subordinate officer an order in writing, specifying the person to be arrested
and the offence for which the arrest is being made; and the latter officer
before arresting the person shall inform him of the substance of the order and,
on being required by such person, show him the order;
(iii) any police officer not below the rank
of inspector specially authorized by the special police officer may, if he has
reason to believe that on account of delay involved in obtaining the order of
the special police officer, any valuable evidence relating to any offence under
this Act is likely to be destroyed or concealed, or the person who has
committed or is suspected to have committed the offence is likely to escape, or
if the name and address of such a person is unknown or there is reason to
suspect that a false name or address has been given, arrest the person
concerned without such order, but in such a case be shall report, as soon as
may be, to the special police officer the arrest and the circumstances in which
the arrest was made.
15. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force, whenever the special police officer
has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence punishable under this Act
has been or is being committed in respect of a woman or girl living in any
premises, and that search of the premises with warrant cannot be made without
undue delay, such officer may, after recording the grounds of his belief, enter
and search such premises without a warrant.
(2) Before making a search under sub-section
(1), 699 the special police officer shall call upon two or more respectable
inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which
the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search, and may
issue any order in writing to them or any of them so to do.
(3) Any person who, without reasonable cause,
refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when
called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall
be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860).
(4) The special police officer entering any
premises under sub-section (1) shall be entitled to remove there from any girl,
if in his opinion she is under the age of twenty-one years and is carrying on
or is being made to carry on, or attempts are being made to make her carry on,
prostitution.
(5) The special police officer, after
removing the girl under sub-section (4) shall forthwith produce her before the
appropriate magistrate. (6) The special police officer and other persons taking
part in, or attending, and witnessing a search shall not be liable to any civil
or criminal proceedings against them in respect of anything lawfully done in
connection with, or for the purpose of, the search.
16. (1) Where a magistrate has reason to
believe from information received from the police or other. wise, that a girl
apparently under the age of twenty. one years, is living, or is carrying on, or
is being made to carry on prostitution, in a brothel, he may direct the special
police officer to enter such brothel, and to remove there from such girl and
produce her before him.
(2) The special police officer after removing
the girl shall forthwith produce her before the Magistrate issuing the
order." Section 17 provides for intermediate custody of girls removed
under s. 15 or rescued under s. 16.
Sections 18 to 21 provide for matters
unconnected with offences.
700 Section 22 provides that no Court
inferior to that of a Magistrate as defined in cl. (c) of s. 2 shall try the
offences mentioned in the section. The Magistrates mentioned in this clause are
District Magistrates, SubDivisional Magistrates, Presidency Magistrates or a
Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered by the State Government by
notification in the official gazette to exercise jurisdiction under the Act.
It is clear from the various provisions that
the Act is a complete Code with respect to what is to be done under it.
It deals with the suppression of immoral
traffic in women and girls, a matter which has to be tackled with
consideration, intelligence and understanding of the problem. This is evident
from the provisions of cl. (b) of sub-s. (3) of s. 13 which provides for the
association of a non-official advisory body consisting of not more than five
leading social welfare workers of that area (including women social welfare
workers wherever practicable) with the special police officer in order to
advise him on questions of general importance regarding the working of the Act.
The Act creates new offences, provides for
the forum before which they would be tried and the orders to be passed on
conviction of the offenders. Necessary provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure have been adopted fully or with modifications. The Act provides
machinery to deal with the offences created and its necessary implication must
be that new machinery is. to deal with those offences in accordance with the
provisions of the special Act and, when there is no specific provision in such
Act, in accordance with the general procedure and that no other machinery is to
deal with those offences. It does not appear reasonable that the investigation
of offences would have been left un-provided and was to be done by the regular
police, in accordance with the regular procedure laid-down under the Code.
On the other hand, there are certain
provisions which are such that the regular police cannot comply with them and
thus they point to the conclusion that it is the special police officer alone
who is to take any 701 action which the police has to take in connection with
the offences under the Act. Section 14 makes offences under the Act cognizable,
which, according to the Code means that persons accused of those offences can
be arrested without a warrant, and s. 157 of the Code specially mentions that
the investigating officer, if necessary, is to take measures for the discovery
and the arrest of the offender; and yet, the power to arrest without a warrant
is not given to the regular police, but under the proviso to this section, is
to be exercised by the special police officer or under his direction or
guidance or subject to his prior approval. The provisions of proviso (iii)
correspond to the provision of s. 57 of the Code and others refer to special
circumstances in which a police officer not below the rank of an inspector
specially authorised by the special police officer can arrest without warrant.
Section 15 provides for searches without
warrant, by the special police officer. This section does not specifically
state that the special police officer alone will search without warrant, but it
is clear from the provisions of this section that officers of the regular
police force will not search without warrant and thus will not exercise the
power given under s. 165 of the Code. All the provisions of s. 15 correspond to
those of s. 165 of the Code.
Further, in view of sub-s. (2) of s. 15, the
special police officer is required to include at least one woman among the
search witnesses. There is no such restriction in s. 103 of the Code. If a
regular police officer is to conduct search in pursuance of the powers
conferred under s. 165 of the Code, he is not bound to include a woman among the
search witnesses. Further, sub-ss. (4) and (5) of s. 15 authorise a special
police officer to remove any girl found in the promises searched, if she be
under twenty-one years of age and is carrying on prostitution. Such a girl is
to be produced before the appropriate Magistrate. The ordinary regular police
officer conducting search under s. 165 of the Code, will not be able to do
anything with respect to such a girl found in the premises 89 702 searched by
him. These provisions clearly indicate that the regular police officers are not
to exercise any powers in connection with the offences and the other purposes
of this Act.
The entire police duties in connection with
the purposes of the Act within a certain area have been put in the charge of a
special police officer. There must be a definite purpose behind the provision
of appointing a police officer in charge of the police duties within a
specified area for the purpose of this Act. If the ordinary police can also
perform the police duties for the purposes of the Act, there can be no special
reason for making the provision for the appointment of a special police
officer. The expression 'police duties' will include all the functions of the
police in connection with the purpose of the Act and in the special context of
the Act they will include the detection, prevention and investigation of
offences and the other duties which have been specially imposed on them under
the Act.
According to s. 13 of the Act, 'there shall
be, for each area to be specified by the State Government, a special police
officer appointed by or on behalf of that Government for dealing with offences
under the Act in that area'. The expression 'dealing with offences' is of wide
import and will include any act which the police has to do in connection with
the offences under the Act. In this connection, we have been referred to the
provisions of s. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which reads:
"All offences under the Indian Penal
Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with
according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be
investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the
same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force
regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or
otherwise dealing with such offences." It is submitted that the expression
'dealt with' must 703 mean something which is not included in investigation,
inquiry or trial. This does not necessarily follow from the provisions of this
section. The word ,otherwise' points to the fact that the expression 'dealt
with' is all comprehensive, and that investigation, inquiry and trial were some
aspects of 'dealing with' the offences. Further, according to sub-s. (3) of s.
13, the special police officer is to be assisted, for the efficient discharge
of his functions in relation to offences under this Act, by a number of
subordinate police officers and will be advised by a non-official advisory
body. The expression 'functions in relation to offences' do include his
functions connected with the investigation of the offences. There is no reason
to exclude such functions from the functions contemplated by sub-s. (3).
The suggestion that the special police
officer would be very heavily worked in case he had to perform all the ordinary
duties of the police connected with the investigation of offences in addition
to the duties conferred on him under the Act, does not go far in putting a different
interpretation on the powers of the special police officer.
He is to be assisted by his sub. ordinate
police officers.
They can investigate both under the
implication of the provisions of s. 13, as they are to assist the special
police officer, and also on deputations by the special police officer, in view
of s. 157 of the Code.
Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 (Act 11 of 1947) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer below the rank of officers
mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) shall investigate any of the offences
mentioned in that Section.
The provision was made in a prohibitive form
because the police officers below the ranks mentioned were not to exercise their
power of investigation unless a Magistrate specially ordered them to
investigate. The provision was not with respect to conferring any special
powers on any particular officer. It was just to restrict the powers of certain
officers with respect to investigating certain offences in certain
circumstances.
704 The difference in the language of s. 5A
of the Prevention of Corruption Act from that of s. 13 of the Act, is therefore
of no help to the contention for the State.
If the power of the special police officer to
deal with the offences under the Act, and therefore to investigate into the
offences, be not held exclusive, there can be then two investigations carried
on by two different agencies, one by the special police officer and the other
by the ordinary police. It is easy to imagine the difficulties which such
duplication of proceedings can lead to. There is nothing in the Act to
co-ordinate the activities of the regular police with respect to cognizable
offences under the Act and those of the special police officer.
The special police officer is a police
officer and is always of the rank higher than a Sub-Inspector and therefore, in
view of s. 551 of the Code, can exercise the same powers throughout the local
area to which he is appointed as may be exercised by the officer in charge of a
police station within the limits of his station.
We are therefore of opinion that the special
police officer is competent to investigate and that he and his assistant police
officers are the only persons competent to investigate offences under the Act
and that police officers not specially appointed as special police officers
cannot investigate the offences under the Act even though they are cognizable
offences. The result is that this appeal by the Delhi Administration fails and
is hereby dismissed.
MUDHOLKAR, J.-The point which arises for
consideration in this appeal is whether a charge-sheet presented by a
station-house officer alleging against the respondent certain offences under
the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. CIV of
1956) (hereinafter called the Act) is bad because the investigation into those
offences was carried out not by a special police officer appointed under the
Act but by the station house officer.
The respondent is alleged to be a pimp and
said to 705 have committed offences under s. 8 of the Act. Investigation into
the offences was made by the officer-in-charge of the Kamla Market Police
Station and a charge-sheet was presented by him before a First Class Magistrate
in Delhi.
Similar charge-sheets were put up against
certain other persons. An objection was taken before the Magistrate in all
these cases that the charge-sheets were bad because the investigation into the
various offences was not made by the special police officer referred to in the
Act. This objection was upheld by the Magistrate and the charge-sheets were
rejected. An application for revision was preferred by the Delhi Administration
before the High Court of Punjab.
But that application was also rejected.
Thereupon the Administration sought a certificate from the High Court under
Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution which the High Court granted. That is how
the present appeal came to be preferred before this Court.
The High Court, following the decision in
Kuppammal, In re (1) held that an offence under the Act must be investigated
only by one of the officers mentioned in s. 13 and that a charge-sheet based
upon the investigation made by any other police officer is bad and must be
quashed.
In my opinion the view taken by the Madras
High Court and accepted by the Punjab High Court is untenable. The Act creates
certain new offences, prescribes the placing of certain restrictions upon
persons found guilty of those offences, provides for the appointment of a
special police officer and for the constitution of an Advisory Board, confers
certain special powers upon the special police officer, em. powers Magistrates
to order the closure of brothels and eviction of the offenders from the
premises occupied by them as well as for the removal of prostitutes from any
place and also makes a provision for the establishment of protective homes as
well as em. powers Magistrates to order detention of women and girls in such
protective homes in certain circumstances. In addition it provides for the
making of rules.
(1) I.L.R. [1959] Mad. 345.
706 According to my brother Raghubar Dayal,
J., since the Act creates new offences and prescribes the procedure for dealing
with them it is a complete code in itself Therefore, according to him, to that
extent the provisions of the Act must prevail over those of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898. Further according to him, since the Act provides for
the appointment of a special police officer for dealing with offences under
this Act in the area within his jurisdiction, it is he and he alone who can
investigate into an offence under the Act committed within that area.
It would be convenient to refer to the
provisions of s. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which runs thus:
"(1) All offences under the Indian Penal
Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with
according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be
investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the
same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force
regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or
otherwise dealing with such offences." Sub-section (2) would prima facie apply
to cases arising under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls
Act except to the extent that its provisions are abrogated or superseded by the
aforesaid Act. While sub-s. (1) provides that only an offence under the Penal
Code must be investigated in accordance with the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, sub-s. (2) provides that offences under any other law shall
be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the
provisions of the Code subject to any enactment for the time being in force
"regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying
or otherwise dealing with such offences." What has to be ascertained,
therefore, is whether in the Act in question there are any provisions which
regulate the manner of carrying out an investigation of offences there under--because
707 here we are concerned only with the limited question of the power of a
station house officer to investigate into an offence under the Act. A bare
perusal of the Act would show that there is no provision therein which confers
upon the special police officer appointed there under the power to investigate
into an offence made punishable by the Act.
Such power is, however, sought to be deduced
from the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 13 which reads thus:
"There shall be for each area to be
specified by the State Government in this behalf a special police officer
appointed by or on behalf of that Government for dealing with offences under
this Act in that area." It is said that the words underlined are wide
enough to include the power to investigate into offences. These are general
words and are undoubtedly of wide import. But they must be construed in the
light of the other provisions of the Act. The Act confers certain specific
powers and imposes certain specified duties on a special police officer. It is
to these matters that the words "dealing with offences" must be
confined. If it were the intention of the legislature to confer upon a special
police officer the sole power to investigate into an offence under the Act it
would have enacted a provision similar to s. 5A in the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 (2 of 1947). This Act was before the Parliament when it enacted the
Act in question and it would be reasonable to presume that if Parliament
intended to confer similar power upon a special police officer appointed under
this Act it would have used the same language for expressing its will as it did
in s. 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Offences under the Act have been made
cognizable by s. 14 thereof. Therefore, prima facie s. 156(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure would apply and an officer-in-charge of a police station
would have the power to investigate into such an offence. No doubt, by virtue
of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
provisions of s. 156, Criminal Procedure Code would be subject to those
provisions of the Act which bear on the question of 708 investigation into
offences. Had Parliament desired that the provisions of s. 156 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure should not apply to offences under the Act it would, in view
of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have
been careful enough to make express provisions in the Act regulating the manner
of investigation of offences there under and specifying the officer entitled to
make the investigation so as to exclude a police officer entitled under the
Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate into offences. In my judgment it
would not have left the matter to mere conjecture and rested content by using
the expression "dealing with offences under this Act", which on its
face is inadequate for excluding the operation of s. 166, Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Investigation, inquiry and trial of offences
are definite stages in the process of bringing a delinquent to book.
Each stage is distinct from the other and the
legislature has made it quite clear in s. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
itself that they are important enough to be mentioned specifically. To make the
point clearer it would be useful to compare the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s.
13 of the Act with those of sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 5 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. While in the former, Parliament has merely used the words
"dealing with offences under the Act" in the latter the words used
are "investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such
offences." No doubt the expression "dealing with offences"
would, according to its ordinary connotation, include the stages of
investigation, inquiry and trial. But the legislature has specifically referred
to the aforesaid three stages because of their importance and apparently for
obviating any doubt as to its intention. When Parliament had before it the Code
of Criminal Procedure and in particular the provisions of s. 5 and s. 156
thereof it would have used in sub-s. (1) of s. 13 of the Act language similar
to that used by it in sub& (2) of s. 5, Criminal Procedure Code if it were
its intention to include in sub-s.
(1) of s. 13 matters like investigation,
inquiry and trial or any of 709 them. It would, therefore, be legitimate to
infer that when Parliament spoke in s. 13(1) of a special police officer being
empowered to deal with offences under the Act it did not intend to confer upon
him the power to investigate into an offence under the Act.
It was pointed out to us that a special
police officer shall not be below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of
Police in the towns of Madras and Calcutta and a Superintendent of Police in.
the Presidency Town of Bombay and a Deputy Superintendent of Police elsewhere
and, therefore, such police officer would have the power to investigate into an
offence. That, however, would be not by force of the provisions of sub-s. (1)
of s. 13 of the Act but by that of the provisions of s. 551 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which runs thus:
"Police-officers superior in rank to an
officer-in charge of a police-station may exercise the same powers, throughout
the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer
within the limits of his station." I would like to make it clear that it
is not my view that a special police officer appointed under the Act cannot
have the power to investigate into an offence under the Act but what I hold is
that he does not derive such power from subs. (1) of s. 13 of the Act. It is
only under s. 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he may be able to
exercise the power to investigate into an offence under the Act.
It was said by reference to the definition of
special police officer in s. 2(1) of the Act that since such an officer is to
be in charge of "police duties" within a specified area he would have
the power to investigate into an offence. The expression "police
duties" is not defined anywhere in the Act. But we were referred to s. 23
of the Police Act in this connection. The relevant part of that section runs
thus:
"It shall be the duty of every
police-officer promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully
issued to him by any competent authority; to collect and communicate
intelligence affecting the 90 710 public peace; to prevent the commission of
offences and public nuisances; to detect and bring offenders to
justice........" The suggestion is that the words "to detect and
bring offenders to justice" are comprehensive enough to include the power
to investigate. It is sufficient to say that the duties enjoined upon police
officers by s. 23 are something quite apart from those which are enjoined upon
them by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation into an offence is a
matter of some importance. Statements recorded therein have considerable value
and can be used for contra.
dieting witnesses questioned during
investigation. It is for this reason that detailed provisions have been
incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with this subject. It is
only when an investigation is completed that a police officer is empowered to
present a charge sheet. Neither the Police Act nor the Suppression of Immoral
Traffic in Women and Girls Act contains any provision whatsoever with regard to
the making of an investigation or presentation of a charge-sheet. It would,
therefore, not be appropriate to read in the words "deal with offences"
the power to investigate into them and present a charge-sheet.
The High Court of Punjab as well as the High
Court of Madras have held not only that s. 13(1) of the Act confers power upon
special police officer to investigate into an offence under the Act but that
the power conferred is exclusive. I am unable to appreciate how even assuming
that the words "deal with offences" confer upon a special police
officer the power to investigate into an offence under the Act and present a
charge-sheet, the powers of an officer-in-charge of a station-house within
whose jurisdiction an offence under the Act has been committed are excluded.
There is not a whisper in s. 13(1) of the Act of the exclusion of the powers of
an officer-in-charge of a police station. It is suggested that unless it is so
held a confusion will result because the special police officer as well as the
officer-in-charge of a police station will 711 each exercise his power to
investigate into an offence under the Act.
I do not think that there would be a danger
of such simultaneous exercise of the power to investigate by two officers. The
offence will have to be registered at the police station within the limits of
the jurisdiction of which the offence has taken place. Thereafter it would be
investigated into by the officer at whose instance it was registered. If that
officer happens to be a station-house officer the special police officer may
take out the investigation from his hands or allow him to continue it.
If the offence is registered at the instance
of the special police officer, the station-house officer would be bound to know
of it from the station-house records and would stay his hands.
Upon this view, therefore, I would allow the
appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and of the Magistrate and
remit the case to the latter for being dealt with according to law.
By COURT: In accordance with the opinion of
the majority, this appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
