SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1955 Supreme(Cal) 71

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
R. N. GHOSH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Revn.  2  Of  1955
Decided On : MAY 05, 1955

Advocates Appeared:
BANKIM CHANDRA DUTT, PANCHU GOPAL GANGULY, SISIR KUMAR BASU

The ingredients of the offence under Section 62a, Calcutta Police Act, are a direction or order lawfully given or made and the violation of it.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 249 - Revival of proceedings - Legality and propriety - Calcutta Police Act (4 of 1866), Section 62a - Ingredients of offence - Necessity of direction or order by Police Officer - Challan not indicating violation of order - Revival of proceedings quashed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was charged under Section 62a of the Calcutta Police Act for not keeping order and shouting at the top of his voice, causing obstruction to traffic. The Magistrate stopped the proceedings under Section 249, CrPC, without pronouncing any judgment. Later, the Magistrate revived the proceedings and summoned the petitioner to face trial.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the challan did not indicate that the petitioner was being prosecuted for violation or contravention of an order or direction given by the Police Officer. The Court further held that the Magistrate had the power to revive the proceedings stopped under Section 249, CrPC.

Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate erred in law in dealing with the proceedings under Section 249, CrPC, when they were initiated upon a police report? 2. Whether the revival of the proceedings against the petitioner was legal and proper? 3. Whether the challan set out the necessary facts which constituted the offence alleged against the petitioner?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the proceedings originated with a police report and cognizance was taken on such report. Therefore, Section 249, CrPC, was attracted. 2. The Court held that the Magistrate had the power to revive the proceedings stopped under Section 249, CrPC. 3. The Court held that the challan did not set out the necessary facts which constituted the offence alleged against the petitioner. The statement of facts contained in the challan did not amount to an offence at all under Section 62a, Calcutta Police Act.

Final Decision: The Court made the Rule absolute and quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioner.

DEBARBRATA MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against an order made by a Presidency Magistrate dated,14-12-1954 by which certain proceedings under the Calcutta Police Act against the petitioner were revived and the petitioner was summoned to tafca his trial.

( 2 ) IT appears that on 18-10-1954 a police challan was submitted in the Court of the learned Magistrate against the petitioner and another under Section 62a, Calcutta Police Act (Act 4 of 1866 ). The charge set out in the challan was in these words;"all the accused persons are charged with not keeping order in and put by shouting at the top of their voice over share business and also causing obstruction to the general traffic at Royal Exchange Place on the 18th of October at about 5/. 15 P. M. "on the next day the petitioner appeared in Court and his plea was taken under Section 242, Criminal P. C. ; but the complainant, that is to say, the police officer concerned who had submitted the challan was found absent whereupon the learned Magistrate made an order under Section 249, Criminal P. C. by which the proceedings were stopped.

( 3 ) IT is quite clear that the proceedings against the petitioner and another having been instituted otherwise than upon complaint the learned Magistrate stopped the proceedings without pronouncing any judgment either of acquittal or conviction and released the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE offence which the petitioner was alleged to have committed was one under Section 62a, Calcutta Police Act. That section empowers a Police Officer not inferior to the rank of Sub-Inspector to give such directions as he thinks necessary either orally or in writing to any person with a view to securing public safetyor convenience to "keep order on and in all streets, quays, wharves and landingplaces, and all other public places or places of public resorts". The officers named in the section have also other power to exercise in other contingencies with which we are not concerned at the moment. Subsection (6) of that section provides that contravention of any direction, order or prohibition lawfully given or made under the section is liable to be punished and the extent and nature of punishment varies from case to case. The penalty that can be Imposed in the case of contravention of a direction given under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 62a of the Act which is the case here, is a fine which may extend to Rs. 100/ -.

( 5 ) IT is therefore clear that what the section requires is that there must be a direction given by the Police Officer concerned with a view to securing public safety or convenience the violation of which is made punishable under Sub-section (6) of Section 62a Calcutta Police Act. The ingredients of the offence are therefore a direction or order lawfully given or made and the violation of it.

( 6 ) TURNING to the present case it is quite clear that the challan does not indicate that the petitioner was being prosecuted for violation or contravention of an order or direction given by the Police Officer. All that is stated in the challan in that the petitioner and another were not keeping order and shouted at the top of their voices and causing obstruction to traffic. Shouting at public places and causing obstruction to traffic are certainly not commendable activities on the part of members of the public but such shouting or causing of obstruction in order to be punished under the provisions of Section C2a has to be shown to have been indulged in in violation of an order made or direction given in that behalf by the Police Officer concerned. The challan contains no indication whatever that any such direction or order Was given and that the petitioner had contravened or violated it. As I have already indicated, obstruction to traffic or creating disturbances by shouts at a public place is not per se sought to be punished by Section 62a, Calcutta Police Act. It is the violation or infringement of an order made orally or in writing by the o








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top