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

1952 Supreme(Cal) 210

DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE, K.C.DAS GUPTA
SUDHIR KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CALCUTTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AJIT KUMAR DUTT, Jitendra Nath Banerjee

K. C. DAS GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued on the State of West Bengal to show cause why the proceedings now pending against the petitioner under Section 161, Penal Code should not be quashed. It is contended before us by Mr. Dutt on behalf of the petitioner that as in this case the investigation was by a Sub-Inspector of the Railway Police in violation of the provisions of Section 3 of Act 2 of 1947, the proceedings have no legal basis. Section 3 of Act 2 of 1947 is in these words:"an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165, Penal Code shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained therein: Provided that a Police Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall not investigate any such offence without the order of a Magistrate of the first class or make any arrest therefor without warrant".

( 2 ) THE effect of the proviso is that Section 156, Criminal P. C. is made inapplicable to investigation of an offence under Section 161, Penal Code. What Section 156, Criminal P. C. provides is that any officer in charge of a police station may without the


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top