STATE (UNION OF INDIA) versus RAM SARAN

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 04-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE (UNION OF INDIA) 
v. 
RAM SARAN 
·.DECEMBER 4, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.: Ss. IO(m), 16(2)/Central 
C Reserve Police Force Rules, 1959; Rules 3 (a), (b), (e) and (j)!Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 4, 5, 11, 12 and 13: 
Assistant Commandant exercising power of Judicial Magistrate con-
victed and sentenced an errant employee/constable on ground of unauthor-
ised absence-Jurisdiction to record conviction~hallenge to-Sessions 
D Court holding that Assistant Commandant had no jurisdiction-Revision 
petition dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, Held: Conferment of 
such power could not be challenged in a proceeding/revision under the 
Cr.P.C.-Since members of CRPF are part of the armed forces, new/ 
specified offences have been created to enforce discipline amongst the 
E members-Hence, Assistant Commandant had jurisdiction to try such 
offences as defined under the Act-Entry 2, List I-Seventh S~hedule to 
the Constitution of India. 
Statute-Vires in a particular provision-Jurisdiction-Held: Exclu-
sively vested with !he Courts exercising power of Judicial Review under 
F Article 321226-It is impermissible for the Courts to decide on vires of the 
provision in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction-Constitution 
of India; Articles 321226. 
G 
Words and Phrases: 
'more heinous offences ', 'less heinous offences' and 'specially created 
offences '-Meaning of in the context of Ss, 9 and JO of the CRPF Act. 
Respondent-employee, a Constable, while serving in the ITBP 
remained absent beyond sanctioned period of leave. Assistant 
H Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force in exercise of powers of 
476 
' y 
It... 
'· 
• 
·~ 
ST A TE (UNION OF INDIA) v. RAM SARAN 
477 
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class conferred on him-as per provisions of A 
the Central Reserve Police Force Act, held trial and found respondent 
guilty and sentenced him to. .Undergo .imprisonment for 3 months. 
Respondent-accused challenged the order in the Sessions Court which 
was allowed by the Sesslons'Court al1d affirmed by the High Court. 
Hence the present appeal by the State (Union of fndia). 
B 
It was contended for the appellant-Union of India that since 
CRPF Act is a special lawibeing operated in specified field, provisions 
of the Act could be applied by the authorities for holding trial for the 
specified offences to convict and sentence an errant employee. 
On behalf of the Respondent-employee, it was submitted that the 
Assistant Commandant had no jurisdiction to function as Judicial 
Magistrate; and that the Central Government cotdd not confer any 
power on the authorities to act as Judicial Magistrate. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
D 
HELD : 1.1. The Courts below have overlooked certain essential 
and vital aspects necessary to appreciate the relevant issues arising in 
their proper perspective. Entry 93 of-List I, VII Schedule to the 
Constitution of India enables Parliament to provide for offences E 
against laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in list I. 
Sections 9 and 10 of the Act create by enumerating what are stated 
to be 'more heinous offences' and 'less heinous offences' respectively 
and· many of such specially created offences for the purposes of this 
Act cannot constitute or amount to be offences under the ordinary p 
criminal law of the land. To that extent they are new class of offences 
created with punishments therefor, which are unknown. to ordinary 
criminal law in force. [481-F-G-H; 482-A] 
1.2. The fallacy in the reasoning of the Courts below lies in their 
superficial and cursory nature of consideration undertaken therein, G 
without reference to the competence and powers of Parliament to 
specifically and specially provide for trial and punishment of offences 
separately created under a special enactment of Parliament, in a manner 
distinct and separate from the method of trying other ordinary criminal 
offences under the general criminal iaw of the country. (482-E-F) 
H 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
1.3. Unauthorised absence of an employee staying beyond the 
sanctioned period of leave is not an offence in the normal course under 
the ordinary criminal law of the land. But, disciplined forces with the 
intention of enforcing discipline have made them punishable consider-
ing them as offences and have prescribed various sentences. For such 
B particular purposes the desi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.