Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
G. Arunkumar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Civil Supply CID, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.9827 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5774 & 5776 of 2022
Decided On : 01-02-2024
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Dhanusu.
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).
IMPORTANT POINT
The authority to conduct investigations under specific regulatory frameworks is limited to designated ranks, but subsequent validation of investigations by authorized personnel can uphold the legality of proceedings.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - QUASHING OF CHARGES - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sec.2(e)(ii) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1988, Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - The court discussed the authority of police officers to conduct investigations under the Special Act, emphasizing that only officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police are authorized to conduct such investigations. The court found that the investigation was subsequently taken over by the appropriate authority, thus validating the proceedings. The petitioners' claims of false implication were not substantiated, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, ranked A1 to A4, were charged under the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Order and the Essential Commodities Act for attempting to transport high-speed diesel without authorization. They sought to quash the charge sheet, claiming they were falsely implicated and that the investigating officer lacked the authority to conduct the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that although the initial FIR was registered by an unauthorized officer, the investigation was subsequently taken over by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, thus validating the proceedings. The court concluded that the petitioners could raise their defense during the trial.
Issues: Whether the investigation conducted by the Inspector of Police was valid and whether the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority to conduct investigations under the Special Act is restricted to officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, since the investigation was later conducted by the appropriate authority, the proceedings were deemed valid.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
ORDER :
T.V. Thamilselvi, J.
[PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records relating to C.C.No. 4331 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruvallur and to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.4331 of 2020 pending before the learned J.M.No.1, Tiruvallur.]
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 4331 of 2020 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruvallur.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The petitioners are ranked as A1 to A4 in the F.I.R. in Crime No.47 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sec.2(e)(ii) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1988, r/w Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Subsequently, the charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.4331 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruvallur and the same is pending. Now, the petitioners have filed this petition praying to quash the said charge sheet. As per the charge sheet, on 12.02.2019, when the respondent police on their regular patrol duty, they found at Manjambakkam near the Karthikeyan Lorry shed, the petitioners' have attempted to transport the high speed diesel from one tanker lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-05-BC-6885 belong to A1 to another tanker tanker lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-02-R.4251, they have seized the vehicle involved in the crime and arrested the petitioners and remanded them to judicial custody on 12.02.2019. After completion of investigation, the final report was filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.4331 of 2020.
4. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police and they are no way connected with the offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would submit that the Inspector of Police, Civil Supply C.I.D. had registered the F.I.R. in Crime No. 47 of 2019 and seized the vehicle and subsequently, arrested them, but he has no right to conduct the said investigation as per the Special Act, however not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is authorised to conduct the investigation. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against them by the Inspector of Police, Civil Supply CID, since because he has no power to conduct enquiry and also entire procedures are not contemplated as per the Rule 4 of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Order, which reads as follows:-
“4. Power of search and seizure :- (A) Any gazetted officer of the Central or State Government or any Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) duly authorised, by general or special order by the Central Government or State Government as the case may be or any officer of the concerned Oil company not below the rank of Sales Officer may, with a view to securing compliance with the provisions of this Order or for the purpose of satisfying himself that this order or any order made thereunder...........”
So, as per Rule 4, it would clearly shows that not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is only authorised for the purpose of conducting investigation. In support of his contentions, he referred the ratio laid down in the authorities reported in (1) 1998 (8) SCC 655 in the case of Mohinder Kumar vs. State, Panaji, Goa, (2) 2006 SCC Online Pat 316 : (2000) 54 (3) BLJR 1688, Patna High Court, in the case of Mohan Pandey and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and (3) the authority held by this court vide an order dated 25.02.2011 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 2396 of 2011 in the case of Karuthapandi and another vs. State.
5. By way of reply, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for respondent would submit that though the F.I.R. was registered by the Inspector of Police, but subsequently the investigation was forwarded to Deputy Superintendent of Police
