LexAKHILESH PRASAD versus UNION TERRITORY OF MIZORAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • • • \ AKHILESH PRASAD v. UNION TERRITORY OF MIZORAM February 11, 1981 [A. D. KosHAL AND A. N. SEN, JJ.J 789 Code of Criminal Procedure, section 197(2)-Whether Central Reserve Po!ice Force falls within the expression "Armed Forces of the Union" as used thereat- Section 3 (I) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act and Entry 2 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Allowing the appeal, the Court HEID ' l : I. The Central Reserve Police Force squarely falls within the expression "Armed Forces of the Union" as used in sub""5ection (2) of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [794 F] A B c 1 : 2. The expression must be given its ordinary meaning which would cer~ D tainly not be limited to the inclusion of only the military, naval and air-forces of the Union as defined in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [793 F-GJ I : 3. Entry 2 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution clearly envisages armed forces other than the three well known forces of the State, namely, the naval, military and air-forces. [793 H, 794 A-BJ E 1 : 4. Sub-section (I) of section 3 of the Centrai Reserve Police Force Act itself declares in no uncertain terms that the Central Reserve Police Force is an armed force of the Central Government which is the same thing as saying that it is a part of the "Armed Forces of the Union". [794 DJ 1 : 5. Just because the Central Reserve Police Force is a reserve force it doea F not follow that it is not a regularly operating force. (794 E-F] 1. The question whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant in the instant case, are or are not such as may be said to have been committed while he woo acting or purporting to act in the discharge of bis offi- cial dutly is to be left over. [794 GJ Pancham Lal v. Dadan Singh, [1979J Criminal Law Journal 1018; S. B. Saha v. M. S. Kochar, [1980] 1 SCR 111-1979 Criminal Law Journal 1367, ap- proved and followed. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 1980 . Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20-2-1980 of the Gauhati High Court in Cr. Revision No. 173/78. G H A B c D E F 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R. Ii. K. Puri for the Appellant. N. Nettar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent. P. A. Francis, K. S. Gurumurthy and R. N. Poddar for the Inter- vener. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KosHAL, J. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment dated the 20th February, 1980, of a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court dismissing an application made by the appellant under sections 482 and 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pray- ing that the proceedings pending in the Court of the Assistant District Magistrate, Aizawl which have been initiated through a police report against the appellant with a prayer that he be punished for offences under sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by him on the 30th May, 1978, be quashed or, in the alternative, that the proceedings be transferred to a compe- tent court beyond the territory of Mizoram. 2. The relevant facts are not in dispute and may be stated briefly. On the 30th May, 1978, a case was registered at the Vairengte Police Station at the instance of one Thanugura alleging that men of the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as CRPF), of which the appellant is a member had fired shots at handyman Thara and a driver the two of whom received injuries in the arm and thigh respectively. After investigation the police submitted a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the appellant to the Assistant District Magistrate Aizawl. 3. Aggrieved by the commencement of proceedings against him in the Court of the Assistant District Magistrate, the appellant sought redress from the High Court through the application which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The prayer for quashing the pro- ceedings contained in the application was based on various grounds G only one of which has now been canvassed before us and tha,t is that the offences attributed to the appellant are alleged to have been com- mitted by him while he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the Union and that in view of the provisions of sulrsection 2 of se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.