1. Challenge to the constitutionality of Sections 207 and 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding commitment proceedings following a police report. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1957 Supreme(SC) 88
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17th September 1957
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B.P. SINHA, KAPUR AND SARKAR, JJ.
Macherla Hanumantha Rao and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of A.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 57 and Criminal Misc. Petn. No. 294 of 1957.
Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
M/s T. V. Sarma, K. Ramaseshayya Chaudhary and T. S. Venkataraman, Advocates, for Appellants; M/s. T. V. R. Tatachari and T. M. Sen, Advocates, for Respondent, Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, Mr. T. M. Sen. Advocate, with him, for the Intervener.
Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, K.R.CHAUDHARY, T.M.SEN, T.S.VENKATA RAMANA, T.V.R.LATACHARI, T.V.SHARMA
C.K.DAFTARY, K.R.CHAUDHARY, T.M.SEN, T.S.VENKATA RAMANA, T.V.R.LATACHARI, T.V.SHARMA
Sections 207 and 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure are constitutional under Article 14 as the distinction between commitment procedures for police reports and private complaints constitutes a reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective of ensuring speedy trials.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 207 and 207A - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Constitutionality of commitment proceedings - Discrimination between cases instituted on police reports and other proceedings - Procedure under Section 207A is more summary than that under Section 208 and subsequent sections - Whether such difference in procedure violates the right to equality - Reasonable classification requires (i) intelligible differentia and (ii) rational nexus to the object of the statute - Object of the amending Act was to simplify and expedite procedure - Classification based on whether a previous inquiry was conducted by a public servant is intelligible and has a rational nexus to the goal of speedy trial - Procedure at the trial stage remains identical for both classes of cases. (Paras 3, 4, 11)
(B) Article 14 - Scope - Forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification - Discrimination in procedural law is also condemned by Article 14. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
Accused persons were committed to the Court of Session for trial of serious offences based on a police charge-sheet following the procedure under Section 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused challenged the order of commitment, contending that Sections 207 and 207A are unconstitutional as they introduce discrimination against accused persons in police-report cases by providing a less advantageous procedure compared to cases instituted otherwise.
Findings of Court:
The differences in the two procedures relating to commitment are based on a relevant consideration, namely, whether there has been a previous inquiry by a responsible public servant. This classification is reasonable and aimed at the administration of justice by ensuring a more speedy trial without avoidable delay.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Sections 207 and 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prescribe a different procedure for commitment in cases instituted on a police report, are unconstitutional for violating the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: A law of procedure does not violate Article 14 if the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out, and if that differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Here, the distinction between police-report cases and complaint cases is intelligible and rationally connected to the objective of expediting the trial process.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that Section 207A provides a less advantageous commitment procedure for accused persons in police-report cases compared to other proceedings, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 3 )
3. The classification between police-report and complaint-based commitment procedures is based on the role of public servants in ensuring speedy justice and preventing private vendettas. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Reasonable classification under Article 14 is permissible if based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the statute, such as ensuring speedy trials. (Para 9 , 11 )
5. The impugned provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are held constitutional, and the appeal is dismissed. (Para 12 )
6. Does the difference in commitment procedures between police reports and private complaints violate Article 14?
No. The classification is based on whether a responsible public servant conducted a previous inquiry. This intelligible differentia has a rational nexus to the objective of ensuring a more speedy trial of offences. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. What is the test for permissible classification under Article 14 of the Constitution?
Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia distinguishing grouped persons from others, and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. (Para 9 )
8. Why is the commitment procedure more elaborate in complaint cases than in police-report cases?
In complaint cases, the Magistrate must be more vigilant to ensure private vendettas do not interfere with justice, whereas police officers are public servants tasked with bringing offenders to justice speedily. (Para 7 )
9. Does a difference in pre-trial commitment procedure affect the fairness of the actual trial?
No. The court observed that there is no difference in the procedure at the trial stage regardless of whether the commitment was made under Section 207A or other provisions. (Para 9 )
Judgement
SINHA, J.- The only question that arises for determination in this appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution, is the constitutionality of the provisions of Ss. 207 and 207A, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), which, read together, were introduced into the Code by Act XXVI of 1955. The 26 appellants have been committed to the Court of Session, Guntur Division, to take their trial for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302, read with Ss. 34 and 149, Indian Penal Code.
They impleaded the State of Andhra Pradesh as the sole respondent. The Union of India has been allowed to intervene on an application made in that behalf in view of the fact that the provisions of the Central Act have been impugned as unconstitutional.
2. For the purposes of this appeal, it is only necessary to state the following relevant facts. The local police took cognizance of a serious occurrence of rioting with murder on 22-12-1955. The local police investigated the case, and after recording such evidence as it could collect in respect of the occurrence, submitted a charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code, to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to entertain the case.
The Magistrate, following the procedure laid down in S. 207A, of the Code, committed the persons shown in the charge-sheet as the accused persons, to take their trial before the Court of Session. A number of applications in revision under Ss. 435 and 439 of the Code, were made on behalf of the accused persons, to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, to quash the order of commitment, chiefly on the ground that the said order having been passed under the provisions of S. 207A of the Code, was void, as those provisions were unconstitutional for the reason that they introduced discrimination as against accused persons in respect of whom a police charge-sheet had been submitted.
The revisional applications were heard by Krishna Rao, J., who dismissed them, holding that the provisions impugned were not unconstitutional and that, therefore, the order of commitment was valid in law. The appellants applied for and obtained the necessary certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court.
3. The arguments addressed to the High Court have been repeated in this Court and are to the effect that Ss. 207 and 207A, as they now stand, provide for two separate procedures in the committing court, namely, (1) in respect of a case instituted on a police report for which the procedure specified in S. 207A is prescribed, and (2) in respect of any other proceeding, the procedure laid down in other provisions of Chapter XVIII is prescribed.
The argument is that a comparison and contrast of the two different procedures prescribed in respect of the two classes of cases, when examined in their details, show that the procedure in respect of a case instituted on a police report is less advantageous to the accused than the other procedure. Thus, it is further argued, in the sections following S. 207A in Chapter XVIII of the Code, the accused have been granted facilities which are not available to them in the procedure laid down in S. 207A.
By way of illustration, it was urged that under S. 208 (3), it is open to an accused person to apply to the magistrate to issue process to compel the attendance of any witness or the production of any document, but sub-s. (2) of S. 207A, which corresponds to the provisions of S. 208 (3), speaks only of the prosecution and not of the accused, Again, it is pointed out that sub-s. (4) of S. 207A, makes reference only to the prosecution evidences. Whereas the corresponding S. 208 (1) makes reference to the evidence that may be produced in support of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused.
Similarly, it has been pointed out that there are no provisions in S. 207A correspond
