( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "cr. P. C. "), petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint (Kalandra), under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, (for short, "d. P. Act"), and the proceedings thereon pending trial in the court of ACMM, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE allegations in brief, are that anti-kidnapping cell of the Police received information that the petitioner, who is working as a beldar (labourer), in the MCD, has been indulging in illegal activities of bringing arms and drugs from the Nepal border; and that some cash and other articles are lying hurried in his jhuggi at Vijay Nagar. The information was recorded vide DD No. 7 dated 10. 7. 97 at P. S. R. K. Puram and was also brought to the notice of Senior Officers. The police visited the jhuggi but it was found locked. The report was kept pending. On 11. 7. 97 at 6:30 a. m. the police again received information that the petitioner was available at jhuggi. The police party proceeded to Lhe spot. Petitioner was found present there. From the house search Rs. 80,000. 00 was recovered. It was suspected to be stolen property and was seized under Section 102 Cr. P. C. From the personal search of the petitioner, a photocopy of driving licence and another sum of Rs. 7,400. 00 was recovered.

( 3 ) STATEMENT of the petitioner was recorded. He stated that he was working as a labourer in the MCD; that mcd contractors used to give him 10% commissions which was shared by the MCD employees and that Rs. 80. 000. 00 was saved by him out of this amount. He further disclosed that huge amount was also lying burred in his jhuggi. He led the police party to his jhuggi at main road Vijay Nagar ftom where he dug out the cemented floor and took out an iron box containing Rs. 4. 0 lacs of different denomination. This was also seized. The petitioner failed to give any explanation and it was suspected to be stolen property. Police after inquiry filed a Kalandara (complaint) under section 103 of the D. P. Act, 1978 before the Court. The trial court took cognisance and on 9. 1. 1998, framed notice under Section 251 Cr. P. C. for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 103 of the D. P. Act. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed a revision petition in Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 20. 10. 1998. However, petitioner was given liberty to move the trial court to challenge the alleged illegality of impropriety, while effecting his arrest.

PETITIONER moved an application before the trial court, which was dismissed on 9. 3. 1999. The petiiner filed second revision before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed on 14. 9. 2000 and the trial court was directed to decide the question of legality of the arrest of petitioner. Petitioner s application was rejected by trial court vide order dated 24. 10. 2000 and the kaladra was treated as complaint. This order is under challenge.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned APP for State and have been taken through the record.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that under clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 59 of DP act, a police officer is empowered to arrest any person contravening any provision of this Act, or any rule, regulation made thereunder where such contravention is an offence punishable under the Act. He argued that sub-Section (2) of Section 59 of DP Act further provides that Police Officer shall not arrest any person under clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 59 Cr. P. C. without the warrant issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, unless such person commits any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (f ). He argued that none of the clauses were contravened, therefore, the arrest of the petitioner is bad in law. Learned APP for the State argued to the contrary.

( 6 ) I find no merit in the above contention, There is another section in Cr. P. C. which empowers the police to arrest any person. Section 41 Cr. P. C. em