LexBALBIR SINGH DELHI ADMN. DELHI versus D.N. KADIAN, M.M. DELHI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 812 BAI.BIR SINGH DEU!l AI»!N. DEUII v. D,N, KADIAN, M.M. DEUII & ANR. D,N, KADIAN AND ORS. DECEMBER 10, 1985 [A.P, SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ,] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 197(3) - Prosecution of member of Delhi Police Force - Prior sanction of the Govern- ment - Whether necessary and if so, when. A Complaint was filed by the Special Railway Magistrate against the appellants, Balbir Singh and Ram Shankar, members of Delhi Police Force, alleging that the Search Memos which were signed by the sub-Inspector Balbir Singh did not bear any signature of the witness Ram Shankar at the time when the said Search memos were in the custody of the Court and that they were interpolated subsequently by getting the same signed by the accused, Ram Shankar. The appellants contended before the Trial Court that the aforesaid complaint was not maintainable since prior sanction as required by s. 197(3) Cr.P.C. was not obtained by the complainant to prosecute them. The trial court rejected the contention and the High Court confirmed the same in appeal by the appellants. The High Court, however, held that the Notifica- tion No. F.10/77/78-HP-ll dated 7th April 1980 issued by the Lt. Governor directing that the provisions of sub-s.(2) of s. 197 "shall apply to serving police officials of all ranks of Delhi Police Force" charged with the maintenance of public order, was bad in law as the Lt. Governor had no authority to issue the said Notification under sub-s.(3) of s. 197 Cr.P.C. Allowing Criminal Appeal No. 845/85 partly and dismissing the other appeal, llEID: l (i) The Judgment and order of the High Court declaring the impugned notification dated 7th April 1980 issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi to be ultra ~ is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. [817 Fl (ii) By virtue of the Notification No. S.0.183(E) dated 20th March 19 7 4, the President empowered the Administrator of Union Territories, i.e. Lt. Governor of Delhi to exercise the BALBlR SINGH v. D,N, KADIAN 813 powers and functions of the State Government as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure except the powers and functions provided in sections 8 and 477 of the said Act, The Notification dated 7th April 1980 issued by the Lt. Governor was made in exercise of powers conferred upon him under sub-section (3) of A Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the Govern- B ment of India Notification dated March fO, 1974 mentioned before. Therefore, the Notification is not ultra vires the Constitution. [815 IH] 2. Reading the two notifications together, it is crystal clear that to start a proceeding against the members of all ranks c of Delhi Police Officials in a Criminal Court, previous sanction of the Lt. Governor is imperative, provided tile offence alleged to have been colllllitted by such members of the D ,lhi Police Force has been comnitted while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duty. [815 Fl ln the instant case, the previous sanction of the Lt. Governor as provided in Section 197(3) Criminal Procedure Code was, not at all necessary for initiating the proceedings against D the two appellants, since the act of tampering of the Search Memos by them cannot be said to have been done in discharge of their official duties inasmuch as the said Search Memos were in E the custody of the Court. [817 E-F] Hatajc)g Dobey v. e..c. llbari, [1955] 2 s.c.R. 925; Pukhraj V• State of Bajasthan & Anr., [1973] 2 s.c.c. 701; Bbagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P.Hisra, [1971] 1 S.C.R. 317 and Darsban """'8r v. Sushll Kamar Malhotra & Ors., 1980 Cr!. L.J. 154 relied upon. Bbikhaji Vaghaji v. L.L Barot and Ors., 1982 Cr. L,J, 2014 approved. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos, 844-845 of 1985, From the Judgment and Order dated 1.12.1982 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 551 of 1982, Anil Ileo Singh, R.N. Poddar and P,K, Mukharjee for the Appellants, F G Anil Kumar Gupta, Amicus Curiae for the Respondents. H lhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by • A B c • D E F G H 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R. B.C.RAY, J. The only question involved in these two appeals is whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants, i.e. Balbir Singh Sub-Inspector and Ram Shanker, Constable of Delhi Police Force is maintainable in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.