Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. P. Srivastava, J.
TEXTILE TRADERS SYNDICATE LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Criminal Misc. 1637 Of 1958
Decided On : 10/16/1958
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Sections 95, 523, 551 - Investigation by Inspector of Police - Freezing of Bank Account - Withholding of Postal Communication - Legality.
Fact of the Case:
An application was filed under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash an investigation against the applicant company and two orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Sections 95 and 523 of the Code, respectively.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Inspector of Police, belonging to the Criminal Investigation Department, could exercise the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 551 of the Code. 2. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 523 of the Code was invalid as the amount in the applicant's bank account had not been seized before the order was passed. 3. The order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 95 of the Code was also invalid as the District Magistrate had not applied his mind to the question of whether the production of letters, parcels, or money orders was necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 94 of the Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the Inspector of Police had the authority to investigate the allegations against the applicant company. 2. Whether the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 523 of the Code was valid. 3. Whether the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 95 of the Code was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 551 of the Code empowers an Inspector of Police to exercise the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station throughout the State. 2. Section 523 of the Code can only be exercised after the property has been seized by the police. 3. Section 95 of the Code requires the District Magistrate to be of the opinion that the production of the document, parcel, or thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding before passing an order under the section.
Final Decision: The application was partly allowed. The investigation proceedings against the applicant company were not quashed, but the orders passed under Sections 95 and 523 of the Code were quashed.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The allegations with which it has been made are that the applicant is a public limited company which carries on the business of sugar factory in the name of New Saraswati Sugar Mills in Saraswati-nagar, thana Jahangirabad, district Bulandshahr. Certain disputes arose between the applicant and Sri dwarka Singh, a Police Inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department, on account of which, it is the case of the applicant, Sri Dwarka Singh got offended. He therefore submitted a report to the District Magistrate of Bulandshahr and the latter authorised him to investigate into certain offences including the offences of cheating and forgery which were alleged to have been committed by curtain directors of that applicant company. In connection with that investigation an order has been passed by the District Magistrate of bulandshahr, a copy of which is annexure e to the petition. By that order, which purports to have been passed under Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure code, the District Magistrate has directed the Post-master of Bulandshahr to "withhold" delivery of all letters, money orders, parcels or any other postal communication addressed to any of the two bogus firms (M/s Textile Traders Syndicate Ltd. , Bulandshahr_ mentioned above till the decision of the case against these firms. These letters, money orders and parcels etc. may be shown to Sri Dwarka Singh, D. I, C.. D. ,. B. , Agra, who is investigating the case". Another order, it is alleged, was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bulandshahr at the instance oi Sri dwarka Singh on 28-5-1958. That order purports to have been passed under Section 523, Cr. P. C. and by it the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the Manager of the Punjab National Bank of india, Bulandshahr "to keep the balance of the date to the credit of these firms in your custody and not to pay it to any person till the decision of the case against these firms. The firms referred to were the same firms in respect of which the order under Section 95 of the Code had been passed.
( 2 ) IT is contended on behalf of the applicant that Sri Dwarka Singh was not authorised in law to conduct any investigation and everything which he is doing is really without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the orders which have been passed by the District Magistrate and the sub-Divisional Magistrate under Sections 95 and 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not justified by the terms of those Sections. The applicant therefore wants the entire proceedings as well as the two particular orders above referred to be quashed.
( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Dwarka Singh in which the various allegations made against him by the applicants have been denied and it has been said that there were justifiable reasons for the action which Sri Dwarka Singh had taken and that the impugned orders were correct.
( 4 ) THE first question that therefore arises is whether Sri Dwarka Singh is entitled to investigate into the allegations that the directors of the applicant company had committed the offences of forgery, cheating and misappropriation. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the only provisions under which Sri Dwarka Singh could conduct an investigation are to be found in sections 155 and 156 of the Code. Section 155 could not apply because it applied only to an investigation relating to non-cognizable cases. Section 156, it is urged, could also not apply because it empowers only an officer-in-charge of a police station to do certain things. Sri Dwarka Singh, it is pointed out, was not such an officer. On the other hand, it is pointed out on behalf of the State that some of the offences in respect of which Sri Dwarka Singh is investigating are non-cognizable, e. g. the offence of forgery. In respect of such, offences he could be authorised by a Magistrate under Clause (2) of Section 155 of the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
