Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R.K. Bag, J.
Bilayet Hossain @ Billal & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRR 1410 of 2015
Decided On : 23-9-2015
For the Petitioners:- Arindam Jana, Advocate.
For the State :- Aniket Mitra, Advocate.
Notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 157(1) and 161(1) of the CrPC have statutory force and prevail over the provisions of the PRB, which are administrative instructions issued by the Government. The Investigating Officer has the authority to conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) of the CrPC without Court permission, even after the Court has taken cognizance of the offense.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Investigation - Authority of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police - Notifications issued by State Government under Sections 157(1) and 161(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure have statutory force - Provisions of Police Regulations, Bengal, 1943 (PRB) are administrative instructions - No conflict between notifications and PRB provisions - Further investigation and supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure permissible without Court's permission.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, foreign nationals residing in India, challenged the criminal proceedings against them for allegedly violating the Foreigners Act, 1946. They contended that the investigation was conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI) in violation of Regulation 207 of the PRB and that the Investigating Officer submitted a supplementary charge sheet without Court permission under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Finding of the Court:
1. The PRB provisions are administrative instructions for running the police force and do not have the force of statutory rules. 2. Notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 157(1) and 161(1) of the CrPC have statutory force and prevail over PRB provisions in case of conflict. 3. The notifications issued by the State Government on December 23, 2009, authorized ASIs to conduct investigations and record statements during investigations. 4. There is no conflict between the PRB provisions and the State Government notifications; rather, the notifications complement the PRB provisions. 5. The Investigating Officer has the authority to conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) of the CrPC without Court permission, even after the Court has taken cognizance of the offense.
Issues: 1. Whether the investigation conducted by an ASI violated Regulation 207 of the PRB? 2. Whether the Investigating Officer could submit a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) of the CrPC without Court permission after the Court took cognizance of the offense?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The PRB provisions are administrative instructions issued by the Government and do not have the force of statutory rules. 2. The notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 157(1) and 161(1) of the CrPC have statutory force and prevail over the PRB provisions in case of conflict. 3. The notifications issued by the State Government on December 23, 2009, authorized ASIs to conduct investigations and record statements during investigations. 4. There is no conflict between the PRB provisions and the State Government notifications; rather, the notifications complement the PRB provisions. 5. The Investigating Officer has the authority to conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) of the CrPC without Court permission, even after the Court has taken cognizance of the offense.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were upheld.
R. K. Bag, J.
The petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceeding of S.T. No. 1 (3) of 2015 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1408 of 2014 which corresponds to Tehatta Police Station Case No. 720 of 2014 dated October 10, 2014 under Section 14B of the Foreigners Act, 1946 pending before the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tehatta, Nadia by filing revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The backdrop of the revisional application filed by the petitioners is as follows: On October 10, 2014 at about 9.55 a.m. the Inspector-incharge of Tehatta Police Station received information that one Bangladeshi National is residing in a rented house at Palashi para under Police Station Tehatta along with members of his family. The information was recorded in the general diary of the Police Station on October 10, 2014. The Inspector-in-charge of Tehatta Police Station accompanied by Sub-Inspector Pradyut Chakraborty and other police officers arrived at Palashi para at about 10.45 a.m. and found the petitioner No. 1 residing in the house of Smt. Kanaklata Biswas for about six months after coming from Bangladesh. The petitioner No. 2 being the wife of the petitioner No. 1 resided along with the petitioner No. 1 in the said house. As the petitioners failed to produce any document to establish that they are citizens of India, a specific criminal case was started against the petitioners on the allegation of committing offence under Section 14B of the Foreigners Act. The said criminal case being Tehatta Police Station Case No. 720 of 2014 dated October 10, 2014 was investigated by one Chandan Dutta, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police submitted charge-sheet in due course on completion of investigation disclosing offence under Section 14B of the Foreigners Act against the petitioners. The case was committed to the Court of sessions in due course. On October 30, 2015 Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tehatta, Nadia framed charge against both the petitioners under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act and against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Mr. Arindam Jana, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police cannot conduct the investigation of the criminal case when the Sub-Inspector of Police is available in Tehatta Police Station as per provisions of Regulation 207 of the Police Regulations, 1943 (in short referred to PRB). The next submission of Mr. Jana is that the Investigating Officer of the case submitted charge-sheet on December 22, 2014 disclosing offence under Section 14B of the Foreigners Act against both the petitioners and thereafter submitted supplementary charge-sheet on August 9, 2015 disclosing offence under Section 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No. 1. According to Mr. Jana, the Investigating Officer has no authority under the law to file supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without the permission of the Court.
4. Mr. Aniket Mitra, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party State has produced copy of Notification No. 4282-PL dated December 23, 2009 issued by Home (Police) Department, Government of West Bengal under Section 157(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Notification No. 4283-PL dated December 23, 2009 issued by the Home (Police) Department, Government of West Bengal, under Section 161(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submits that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police can be deputed by the Officer-in-charge of any Police Station for conducting investigation and for recording statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Mitra specifically submits that both the above notifications issued under the specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State Government will override the provisions of Regulation 207 o
