Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 4107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
M. Muthuraj - Petitioner
Versus
State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Bagalur Police Station Hosur, Krishnagiri District - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 3640 of 2016 and Crl. M.P. No. 1879 of 2016
Decided On : 22-06-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Chandrasekaran.
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 379 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 41(i)(d) , 102 and 482 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 –Offence of theft – Seizure of 25 batteries - Charged - Filed seeking to call for records and quash - Petitioner/accused was arrested by police and his statement was recorded - Petitioner/accused gave a confession statement, wherein he has stated that he is an employee of Exide Battery Company and that 25 batteries were stolen from Krish Auto Power Private Ltd., in with connivance of one - Disclosure made by petitioner/accused, which is relevant under Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872, Police in seized 23 batteries from house of petitioner/accused - Petitioner/accused was produced before Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, who remanded petitioner/accused to custody and later, the petitioner/accused was released on bail - Attebele Police, appear to have come to conclusion that theft of batteries had taken place in Hosur in Tamil Nadu from premises of Auto Power Private Ltd. and ergo, they believed that, they had no jurisdiction to proceed further in investigation and prosecute petitioner/accused before Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, - Hence, Attebelle Police made an application before Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, for transfer of records to Police Station in Hosur in on ground that they have no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case – Held, In order to secure satisfactory co-operation between the Police of neighbouring areas for purpose of control of organized crime and of criminals, all Executive Officers from rank of Sub-Inspector to Superintendent of Police, both of the District and Railway Police, should keep up frequent and confidential intercourse by correspondence and meetings with officers of corresponding rank in the areas bordering their jurisdiction, whether within or without State of Tamil Nadu Meetings should take place when there is current matter for personal discussion and may be held on frontier or elsewhere as found convenient - There is no provision in Code of Criminal Procedure as to how these matters should be dealt with nor is there any prohibition in Code of Criminal Procedure for police officer of a border district to send the case diary by post to the Station House Officer of police station in neighbouring State - After all, procedure is an handmaid of justice and not its servant - It would have been an ideal situation had Superintendent of Police of Attebelle District handed over the case diary file to Superintendent of Police of District, during meetings of Superintendents of Police of border districts - In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed
This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to call for the records in Crime No.177 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.02.2011, two Constables attached to Attebele Police Station in Karnataka, were on usual rounds and found the petitioner/accused moving around suspiciously with a gunny bag. On seeing the policy party, the petitioner/accused attempted to flee. He was caught by the police and when the gunny bag in his possession was checked, it was found to contain two batteries.
3.2 The Police Constables took the petitioner/accused to Attebele Police Station in Karnataka and registered a case on the same day in Attebele P.S. Crime No. 37 of 2011 under Sections 41(i)(d) and 102 Crl.P.C. read with Section 379, I.P.C. The petitioner/accused was arrested by the police and his statement was recorded. The petitioner/accused gave a confession statement, wherein, he has stated that he is an employee of Exide Battery Company at Bagalur in Tamil Nadu and that 25 batteries were stolen from Krish Auto Power Private Ltd., Bagalur in Tamil Nadu with the connivance of one Anand.
3.3 Pursuant to the disclosure made by the petitioner/accused, which is relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, Attebele Police in Karnataka seized 23 batteries from the house of the petitioner/accused in Ram Nagar, Hosur, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner/accused was produced before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka, who remanded the petitioner/accused to custody and later, the petitioner/accused was released on bail. Seizure of 25 batteries was also reported to the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka.
3.4 On the application made by Krish Auto Power Private Ltd., presumably under Section 457, Cr.P.C., the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka, directed the Attebele police to hand over the 25 batteries to them, pursuant to which, Krish Auto Power Private Ltd. received the batteries from the Attebele police as interim custody. The Attebele Police, Karnataka, appear to have come to the conclusion that the theft of the batteries had taken place in Hosur in Tamil Nadu from the premises of Krish Auto Power Private Ltd. and ergo, they believed that, they had no jurisdiction to proceed further in the investigation and prosecute the petitioner/accused before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka. Hence, the Attebelle Police, Karnataka made an application before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka, for transfer of records to the Police Station in Hosur in Tamil Nadu on the ground that they have no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case and prosecute the offender before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka.
3.5 The Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka, ordered transfer of the entire case to the file of Bagalur Police Station in Hosur, Tamil Nadu. Pursuant to the said order, the entire case diary in Attebelle P.S. Crime No.37 of 2011 was sent by post to the Bagalur Police Station at Hosur in Tamil Nadu, where, the Sub-Inspector of Police re-registered a fresh F.I.R. in Bagalur P.S. Crime No.177 of 2011 under Sections 41(i)(d) and 102 Crl.P.C. read with Section 379 I.P.C. on 13.06.2011 and took up the case for investigation.
3.6 Since all the records were in Kannada language, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bagalur Police Station, Hosur, had them translated into Tamil. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bagalur Police Station Hosur, has been making repeated requests to the Karnataka police to secure the 25 batteries and hand over possession of the same for the purpose of prosecuting the petitioner/accused in Tamil Nadu, for which, the Karnataka police have done nothing, till date. Hence, Crime No.177 of 2011 is still pending.
3.7 Under such circumstances, the petitioner/accu
