Md. Yunus, S/o Late Md. Siddique @ Sadique vs State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(Pat) 118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.
Md. Yunus, S/o Late Md. Siddique @ Sadique - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.563 of 2013 With 231, 353 of 2016 With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1219, 6660 of 2016
Decided On : 22-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.P. Pandey, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Chakrapani, Md. Shamimul Hoda, Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Mr. Dipak Kumar, Mr. Madhuresh Singh, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. Y.S. Lohit, Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4, Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC-9.
For the EOU : Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Soni Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Adv.

Headnote:
Economic Offence Police Station - Validity of Establishment - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Bihar Police Act, 2007 - The court held that the establishment of the Economic Offence Police Station was validly done in accordance with Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the requirements of the Bihar Police Act, 2007 were met. The court rejected the argument that the police station could only be created by a notification in the official gazette, as it was not a requirement of the law. The court also emphasized that the State Legislature could not control or whittle down the Parliamentary legislation in respect of matters covered in the Concurrent List, and any exercise by the State Legislature had to be brought in conformity with the parameters specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court further held that the establishment of the Economic Offence Police Station could not be questioned as it complied with the requirements of the law, and any irregularity in the investigation would not vitiate the trials unless serious prejudice was shown by the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:

The court addressed the difference of opinion amongst the judges regarding the establishment of the Economic Offence Police Station. The primal question involved in the group of writ petitions was whether the exercise carried on by the State Government in establishing the police station was an exercise in futility or not. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Bihar Police Act, 2007, and considered the constitutional provisions and their effect in respect of the two legislations.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the establishment of the Economic Offence Police Station was validly done in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Bihar Police Act, 2007. The court rejected the argument that the police station could only be created by a notification in the official gazette, as it was not a requirement of the law. The court emphasized that the State Legislature could not control or whittle down the Parliamentary legislation in respect of matters covered in the Concurrent List, and any exercise by the State Legislature had to be brought in conformity with the parameters specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court further held that the establishment of the Economic Offence Police Station could not be questioned as it complied with the requirements of the law, and any irregularity in the investigation would not vitiate the trials unless serious prejudice was shown by the petitioners.
Issues: The issues addressed by the court included the validity of the establishment of the Economic Offence Police Station, the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Bihar Police Act, 2007, and the constitutional provisions and their effect in respect of the two legislations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the establishment of the Economic Offence Police Station was validly done in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Bihar Police Act, 2007. The court emphasized that the State Legislature could not control or whittle down the Parliamentary legislation in respect of matters covered in the Concurrent List, and any exercise by the State Legislature had to be brought in conformity with the parameters specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court further held that the establishment of the Economic Offence Police Station could not be questioned as it complied with the requirements of the law, and any irregularity in the investigation would not vitiate the trials unless serious prejudice was shown by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions challenging the registration of F.I.R., investigation, and the prosecution of the petitioners, as the establishment of the Economic Offence Police Station was found to be valid and compliant with the law.

JUDGMENT :

There being a difference of opinion amongst the two Hon’ble Judges of this Court, comprising the Division Bench, of the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice I.A. Ansari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, these cases have been referred to this Court.

2. The primal question involved in these group of writ petitions is, whether the exercise carried on by the State Government in establishing “Economic Offence Police Station” is an exercise in futility or not, because based thereon what would be the effect on the F.I.R. so registered, police investigation, charge-sheet, trial and conviction?

3. The then Hon’ble the Chief Justice held that steps taken by the State Government, being not in accordance with the Bihar Police Act, 2007, the registration of the F.I.R., investigation would all be nullity and no prosecution could be based thereon. Whereas, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh held that the declaration of police station was a matter completely covered by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as such there was no illegality enuring to the benefit of the writ petitioners, who are sought to be prosecuted, consequent to F.I.R. lodged with the said police station and investigated through it.

4. Having perused the two conflicting opinions and heard the parties at length, in my view, the opinion of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh appears to be correct. I give hereunder the reasons for the same.

5. To begin with one has to note the relevant provisions of the two legislations, i.e. the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bihar Police Act, 2007, then to note the constitutional provisions and its effect in respect of the two legislations. For ready reference, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the provisions of Bihar Police Act, 2007 are being quoted hereunder, with emphasis supplied where necessary:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2. Definitions – In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires: -

(a) ………….

(b) ………….

(c) “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance wit the First Schedule or under any other law for time being in force, arrest without warrant.

(d) …………

(h) “investigation” includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf:

(j) "local jurisdiction", in relation to a Court or Magistrate, means the local area within which the Court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under this Code [and such local area may comprise the whole of the State, or any part of the State, as the State Government may, by notification, specify];

(m) "notification" means a notification published in the Official Gazette ;

(n) "offence" means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle - trespass Act, 1871 ( 1 of 1871);

(s) "police station" means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf ;

(t) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Code;

4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws - (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.

(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.

36. Powers of superior officers of police - Polic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(Pat) 118

Cases Referred (2)