Back
1995 Supreme(MP) 851
1996 JLJ 305
(FULL BENCH)
U.L. Uhat, C.J., S.K. Dubey and V.K. Agarwal, JJ.
Hanumant Singh v. State of M.P. and another M.P. No. 2522 of 1984;
Decided on 28.9.1995.
Purushottam Shastri for petitioner; R.S. Jha, Govt. Advocate for State; Smt.
Indira Nair for Union of India.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 4 (2) and 5 -- penal enactment having no provision for investigation, enquiry and trial-- the offence has to be investigated, inquired into and tried according to the provisions of the Code. [Para 5]
(2) Constitution of India -- Part. III and Part IV -- fundamental rights and directive principles of State policy -- constitute conscience of Constitution -although directive principles cannot be enforced by Courts yet while considering fundamental rights can be guided by directive principles.
True the Directive Principles of the State Policy cannot as such be enforced by Courts. But while considering the question of enforcement of fundamental rights of a citizen, it is open to the Courts to be guided by the Directive Principles to ensure that in doing justice the principles contained therein are maintained. Fundamental rights and the Directive Principles constitute‘ ‘conscience of the Constitution". The Constitution aims at bringing about a synthesis between ‘Fundamental Rights‘ and ‘Directive Principles‘ of the State Policy by giving to the former a place of pride and to the latter a place of permanence; together they form core of the Constitution. They constitute its true conscience and without faithfully implementing the Directive Principles it is not possible to achieve the Welfare State contemplated by the Constitution. (1973) 4 SCC 225 and (1989) 3 SCC 191 followed. [Para 10]
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 50 -- separation of Judiciary from any control of Executive as provided under -- is conscience of the Constitution -independence of Judiciary is fighting faith of the Constitution. AIR 1977 SC 2328 followed. [Para 11]
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 6, 15 and 23 -- scheme of separation of Judiciary .from Executive -- Judicial Magiskites work under subordination of Sessions Judge while Executive Magistrates work under District Magistrate. • [Para 12]
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 50 -- basic structure of Constitution is affected by merging judicial functions in the executive magistrates -- justice and fair trial cannot be ensured from them as they are not legally qualified persons.
By merging the judicial function in the executive, the basic structure of the Constitution is affected; justice and fair trial cannot be ensured by the Executive Magistrates inasmuch as they are not required to be legally qualitied and trained persons and in actual practice are required to perform various other functions. Their powers under the Code are limited for the purposes of maintenance of law and order or dealing with the cases of the nature as provided in Chapter VIII to Chapter X of the Code; while the Judicial Magistrate, who remains under the exclusive control of the Court of Session and the High Court has to conduct judicial inquiry and trial of cases of various offences by recording judicial decisions. In fact the functions of the Judiciary and Executive are quite different. In other words it is clear that the Executive Magistrate has no role to play in conducting judicial trial and recording judicial decision. [Para 12 ]
(6) Justice -- should not only be done but should appear to have been done u punishable offence made triable by executive magistrate -- bias may reasonably apprehended by accused. AIR 1979 SC 478 followed. (1994) 3 SCC 569 distinguished. [Paras 13 & 14]
(7) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 246, 238 and 239 -- in warrant case trial commences after charge is framed under S. 246 -- in such cases on police report discharge under S. 238 or framing of charge under S. 239/240 amounts to a trial. AIR 1980 SC 962 followed. [Para 15]
(8) Constitution of India -- Art. 21 -- provides that procedure by law must be fair, just and reasonable -- accused should have satisfaction to have a fair and just trial. [Para 16]
(9) Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 -- Ss. 21 and 13 -Constitution of India -- Arts. 14, 21 and 50 -- vesting executive Magistrate to try offences under the Act -- does not only violate provision of Art. 50 but also of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Vesting judicial powers on the Executive Magistrates by the enabling provision under section 21 of the Act is not only against article 50 of the Constitution but also against the articles 14 and 21 and also the scheme of the Code. Therefore, we are of the opinion that section 21 of the Act which enables the State Government to confer on an Executive Magistrate the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of first class or second class for the trial of the offences under the Act, offends Articles 21, 14 and 50 of the Constitution. 1985 CrLJ 1739 relied on. 1992 (2) CrLJ 1228 distinguished. [Paras 18 & 19]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 4¼2½ rFkk 5 & vUos"k.k] tk¡p rFkk fuokj.k ds fy, mica/k jfgr nkafMd vf/kfu;fefr & vijk/k dk vUos"k.k] tk¡p rFkk fopkj.k lafgrk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj djuk gksxkA ¿iSjk 5
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & Hkkx 3 rFkk 4 & ewy vf/kdkj rFkk jkT; dh uhfr ds funs‘kd rRo & lafo/kku dh var‘psruk ds ?kVd gSa & ;|fi funs‘kd rRo U;k;ky;ksa }kjk çofrZr ugha fd, tk ldrs] rFkkfi] ewy vf/kdkjksa ij fopkj djrs le; funs‘kd rROkksa ls os ekxZn‘kZu çkIr dj ldrs gSaA
;g lR; gS fd jkT; dh uhfr ds funs‘kd rROk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk çofrZr ugha fd, tk ldrsA fdarq fdlh ukxfjd ds ewy vf/kdkjksa ds çorZu ds ç‘u ij fopkj djrs le; U;k;ky;] funs‘kd rRoksa ls ekxZn‘kZu çkIr djus ds fy, Lora= gSa ftlls ;g lqfuf‘fpr gks lds fd U;k; djrs le; muesa varfoZ"V fl)karksa dk leFkZu gksrk gSA ewy vf/kdkj rFkk jkT; dh uhfr ds funs‘kd rRo ^^lafo/kku dh var‘psruk** ds ?kVd gSaA lafo/kku dk y{; ^^ewy vf/kdkjksa** rFkk jkT; dh uhfr ds ^^funs‘kd rRoksa** dk iwoZorhZ dks xkSjoiw.kZ LFkku vkSj Ik‘pkrorhZ dks LFkkf;Ro dk LFkku nsdj] leUo; djus dk gS( ,d&lkFk ;g nksuksa lafo/kku dk lkj Hkkx gSaA ;g mldh okLrfod var‘psruk gS vkSj funs‘kd rRo fu"BkiwoZd dk;kZfUor fd, fcuk lafo/kku }kjk vuq/;kr dY;k.kdkjh jkT; çkIr djuk laHko ugha gSA ¼1973½ 4 ,Lk lh lh 225 rFkk ¼1989½ 3 ,l lh lh 191 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 10
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-50 & esa ;Fkk micaf/kr dk;Zikfydk ds fdlh fu;a=.k ls U;k;ikfydk dk Ik`FkDdj.k & lafo/kku dh var‘psruk gS & U;k;ikfydk dh Lora=rk lafo/kku dh tq>k: fu"Bk gSA , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 2328 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 11
¼4½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 6] 15 rFkk 23 & dk;Zikfydk ls U;k;ikfydk ds Ik`FkDdj.k dh ;kstuk & U;kf;d eftLVªsV] ls‘ku U;k;k/kh‘k dh v/khuLFkrk esa dk;Z djrs gSa tcfd dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV] ftyk eftLVªsV ds v/khu dk;Z djrs gSaA ¿iSjk 12
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-50 & dk;Zikyd eftLVªsVksa esa U;kf;d ÑR;ksa ds foy;u ls lafo/kku dh vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk çHkkfor gksrh gS & muds }kjk U;k; vkSj _tq fopkj.k dh lqfuf‘pr ugha gS D;ksafd os fof/kd :Ik ls vgZ O;fDr ugha gSA
U;kf;d ÑR; dk foy;u dk;Zikfydk esa djus ls lafo/kku dh vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk çHkkfor gksrh gS( dk;Zikyd eftLVªsVksa }kjk U;k; vkSj _tq fopkj.k dh lqfuf‘prrk ugha gks ldrh D;ksafd mudk fof/kd :Ik ls vgZ vkSj çf‘kf{kr O;fDr gksuk visf{kr ugha gSa rFkk okLrfod O;ogkj esa vU; fofHkUu ÑR; fd, tkus muls visf{kr gSA lafgrk ds v/khu mudh ‘kfDr;k¡ fof/k vkSj O;oLFkk cuk, j[kus ds ç;kstu rd vFkok lafgrk ds v/;k; 8 ls v/;k; 10 esa ;Fkk micaf/kr Lo:Ik ds ekeys ns[kus rd lhfer gSa( tcfd U;kf;d eftLVªsV dks] tks ls‘ku U;k;ky; rFkk mPp U;k;ky; ds vuU; fu;a=.k esa jgrk gS] fofHkUu vijk/kksa ds ekeyksa dh U;kf;d tk¡p rFkk fopkj.k] U;kf;d fofuf‘p; vfHkfyf[kr djds djuk gksrk gSA oLrqr% U;k;ikfydk vkSj dk;Zikfydk ds ÑR; lqfHkUu gSaA vU; ‘‘kCnksa esa] ;g Li"V gS fd dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV dh U;kf;d fopkj.k vkSj U;kf;d fofu‘p; vfHkfyf[kr djus esa dksbZ Hkwfedk ugha gSA ¿iSjk 12
¼6½ U;k; & dsoy fd;k gh ugha tkuk pkfg,] fd;k x;k çdV Hkh gksuk pkfg, & naMuh; vijk/k dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV }kjk fopkj.kh; cuk;k tkus ij & vfHk;qDr }kjk Ik{kikr dh vk‘kadk ;qfDr;qDr :Ik ls dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 478 vuqlfjrA ¼1994½ 3 ,l lh lh 569 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 13 rFkk 14
¼7½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 246] 238 rFkk 239 & okjaV ekeys esa /kkjk 246 ds v/khu vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus ds Ik‘pkr fopkj.k çkjaHk gksrk gS & ,sls ekeyksa esa iqfyl fjiksVZ ij /kkjk 238 ds v/khu NksM+k tkuk vFkok /kkjk 239@240 ds v/khu vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkuk fopkj.k dh dksfV dk gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 962 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 15
¼8½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 21& esa micaf/kr gSa fd U;k; çfØ;k _tq] U;k;ksfpr rFkk ;qfDr;qDr gksuk pkfg, & vfHk;qDr dks _tq vkSj U;k;ksfpr gksus dk lek/kku gksuk pkfg,A ¿iSjk 16
¼9½ caf/kr Je Ik)fr ¼mRlknu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 & /kkjk 21 rFkk 13 & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 14] 21 rFkk 50 & dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV dks bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/kksa dk fopkj.k fufgr fd;k tkuk & Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds dsoy vuq-50 dk gh vfrØe.k ugha vfirq vuq-14 vkSj 21 dk Hkh vfrØe.k gSA
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21 ds v/khu lkeF;Zdkjh mica/k }kjk dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV esa U;kf;d ‘kfDr;k¡ fufgr fd;k tkuk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds dsoy vuq-50 ds gh fo#) ugha gSa] vfirq vuq-14 vkSj 21 ds rFkk lafgrk dh ;kstuk ds Hkh fo#) gSA blfy,] gekjh jk; gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21] ftlds }kjk vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/kksa ds fopkj.k ds fy, fdlh dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV dks U;kf;d eftLVªsV çFke Js.kh vFkok f}rh; Js.kh dh ‘kfDr çnku djus dks jkT; ljdkj dks leFkZ cuk;k x;k gSa] lafo/kku ds vuq-14] 21 rFkk 50 dh mYya?kudkjh gSA 1985 lhvkj ,y ts 1739 voyafcrA 1992¼2½ lhvkj ,y ts 1228 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 18 rFkk 19
S.K. Dubey, J. -- 1. This order shall govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 2516 of 1984 (Krishna Pal Singh v. State of M.P. and another); Misc. Petition No. 2517 of 1984 (Pannalal v. State of M.P. and another); Misc. Petition No. 2518 of 1984 (YeshwantSingh v. State of M.P. and another); Misc. Petition No. 2519 of 1984 (Ramchandra Singh v. State of M.P. and another); Misc. Petition No. 2520 of 1984 (Mandatar Singh v. State of M.P. and another) and Misc. Petition No. 2521 of 1984 (Surendra Singh v. State of M.P. and another).
2. The petitioners in all the petitions are agriculturists, who for their agricultural operations hired labour, Bhils of Tahsil Petalwad, district Jhabua. On some complaints, after investigation concerning Police filed charge sheets under section 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioners, in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Petalwad (for short 'the S.D.M.') in Criminal Case Numbers as mentioned below.
S.No. Writ Petition No. Cr. Case No.
1) M.P. No. 2522/84 Criminal Cases No.s
186/83, 187/83,188/83
189/83,197/83,203/83
204/83 and 232/83.
2) W.P. No. 2516/84 Cr. Cases No.s
196/83,231/83
3) W.P. No. 2517/84 Cr. Cases No.s
199/83,200/83,201/83,
202/83.
4) W.P. No. 2518/84 Cr. Cases No.s
193/83, 194/83, 198/83
5) W.P. No. 2519/84 Cr. Cases No.s
180/83,181/83,
182/83,183/83,184/83,
185/83, 230/83.
6) W.P. No. 2520/83 Cr. Cases No.s
190/83,191/83,192/83
195/83.
7) W.P. No. 2521/84 Cr. Cases No.s
205/83,206/83,207/83,208/83
3. During trial, the petitioner apprehended that they will not get fair and just trial, hence they applied under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'the Code') before the Session Judge, for transfer of the cases to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class of the competent jurisdiction; that prayer was rejected. Hence, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid petitions. challenging the constitutional validity of section 21 of the Act.
4. All the aforesaid petitions were heard by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench after having anxiously considered the question raised in the petitions was of the opinion that the matter deserves to be considered by a larger Bench; hence referred the matter accordingly vide order dated 11th August, 1995.
5. The petitioners contended that Article 50 of the Constitution lays down that the State shall take steps to separate the Judiciary from the Executive in the public services of the State. directive Principles of the State policy are conscience of the Constitution and embodies the philosophy of the Constitution and its basic underpinning and values. The anxiety of the Constitution makers was to keep the Judiciary far away from any form of Executive Control or interference. After the enforcement of the Code, the trial of any offence by an Executive Magistrate is excluded. Section 4 of the Code deals with trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. Section 5 contains saving provision. The effect of conjoint reading of section 4 (2) and section 5 of the Code is that an offence has to be investigated, inquired into, tried or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Cede unless there be an enactment regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. There is no such provision in the Act regulating the manner or place of investigating or inquiring into the offences under the Act. Section 21 of the Act enables the State Government to confer powers on an Executive Magistrate for the trial of the offences under the Act and if such power is conferred, such Executive Magistrate is deemed for the purposes of the Code to be a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or Second Class as the case may be. If no such power is conferred by the State Government on an Executive Magistrate, all offences under the Act are to be tried
