LexDELHI ADMINISTRATION versus RAM SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
State of Bihar v. Umesh ]h• Subbo Rao ]. May 3. 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) the respondent to raise the said question for the first time before us. We, therefore, reject this plea. In the result we set aside the order of the High Court and allow the appeal. But, in the circumstan- ces of this case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs here and in the High Court. Appeal allowed. DELHI ADMINISTRATION v. RAM SINGH (K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Criminal Law-Immoral traffic-Enactment for suppression- Speciat police officer appointed under the Act- Investigation of offen- ces under the Act-Exclusion of powers of station-house oj)icer- "Dealing with offences under the Act"-Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, r956 (ro4 of r956), ss. 2(i), 8, r3(2) -Code of Criminal Procedure, r898 (Act V of r898), ss. 5, r56, 55r. Jhe 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 offen- ces 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, be and his assistant police officers were the only persons who could investigate offences under the Act committed within that area, and that police offi- cers not specially appointed as special police officers could not 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 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. 55 l of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even assuming that the words "deal with offences" ins. 13(1) confer upon a special police officer the power to investigate into an offence under the Act and present a charge- shect, the powers of an officer-in-charge of a station-house with- in whose jurisdiction an offence under the Act has been commit- ted 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 Revi- sion No. 31-D of 1960. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, R.H. Dhe- bar and D. Gupta, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. 1961. May 3. The Judgment of K. Subba Rao and Raghuba.r Dayal, ,JJ., was delivered by Raghubar Dayal, J. J. R. Mudholkar, J., delivered a separate judgment. RAOHUBAR DAY.AL, J.-The only ·point for con- sideration 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 nnder 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 ar.d submitted the charge-sheet to the Magis- trate. The Magistrate quashed the charge-sheet, hold- ing that the special police officer alone was competent Delhi Adtninistration y. Ram Singh RaghubaY Dayal j. D~lhi Administration v. Ra11t Singh Raghubar Dayal j; 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] to investigate the case and that Jet Ram could not have investigated it. ·On revision by the Sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.