STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus S. N. BASAK

AcA.1"' dJAicary •• St.U of W1sl Beng•l Kap14r J.

/, 1¥ April 12.

because in its opinion the judgment of the court delivered by another Bench suffers from an error in regard tu certain facts. In our view the certifi-cate granted by the Calcutta. High Courl; was not proper certificate and must oo cancelled.

It was then urged that special leave should be granted under Art. 136 and the appeal be beard as the record had been printed a!ld on that material if leave were to be granted the .-ppeal oould be properly argued. We have heard counsel for the appellant and we see no reason to grant special leave in this caa11. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismisse,d.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL

S. N. BASAK (J. L. Ku>uR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)

Poliu Inv .. tigation-lleport by Police, Enforcement Bra11ch-Motion lo quash-High Court, Po1ur• of-Indian Penal Code 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), aa. 420, 120B--Oode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), 88, 154, 156, 439 and 56/A,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Enforcement Branch, filed report before the Police Officer.in-charge of Police Station alleging that the respondent abng with three others committed offences under ss.420, 120B read with s.420 Indian Penal Code. Thereupon First Information Report was drawn up and investigation was started. The respondent surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate and he was released on bail. Subsequently he filed an application in the High Court under ss, 439 and 561 of the Criminal Procedure Code to get the case pending before the .Judicial Magistrate arising out of the

case registered if! the Police Station quashed. This appli-cation was granted by the High Court. The appellant the State of West Bengal then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court by certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 134 (l} (c) of th'e Constitution.

Held, that the statutory powers given to the Police under ss. 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investi-gate into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence without authority from Magistrate cannot be interfered with by the exercise of powers under s.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the inherent powers conferred by!s. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Coµrt was therefore in error in allowing the. respondent's application.

King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, ( 1944) L.R. 71

I.A. 203 allowed.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1961.

Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 6, 1960 of the OnJcutta High Court in Cr. Revision No. 647 of 1960.

B. Sen, P. K. Chatterjee and P. K. Bose, for

the appellant.

D. C. Roy and P. K. Mukherjee, for the

respondent.

1962. April 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal against the

judgment and order of the .High Court of Calcutta quashing the investigation started against the respondent in regard to offences under s. 420, Indian Penal Code, and s. 120B read with s. 420 of the Indian .Pena.I Code.

On March 26, 19o0, Sub- Inspector B. L. Ghose

of Police Inforcement Branch filed written report before the Officer-in-charge Uha.kdha P. S., alleging that the respondent in conspiracy with three others

Stc..te of W,ui Blnga

v. S.!i.[1]• Bosak

Kapur J,

1112 5tn1 •J We•I •1n1cl .. S.N. B•sak x.,,ur J.

54 SUPREME OOURT REPOR'l'S {1963]

had cheated the Government of West Bengal of sum of .Rs. 20,000. The respondent at tho time was an Assistant-cum·Executivc Engineer, Kanchrnpara Development Area, Kalyani Division. Un the basis of this report First Information Report was drawn up and the police started investigation. On April 4, 1960, the respondent surrendered in the court of the Judicial Magistrate at Hanaghat an<l was released on bail for sum of Rs. 1,000/·. The respondent th11n on May 9, 1960, filed petition under ss. 439 and 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayed for rule against the District Magistrate, Nadia, to show cause why the judicial case pending in the court of the Senior Magistrate Ranagaghat a.rising out of the Chakdah Polioe Station Case No. 33 dated March 26, 1960, be not quashed. The High Court bold :-

"In our view, the statutory power of investigation given to the police under Chapter XIV is not available in respect of an offence triable under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act 1949, and that being so, the investigation conoerned is without jurisdiction. In so saying, we a.re oonsicious of the observations of their Lord-ships of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad's case, 71 Indian Appeals, 203".

and therefore quashed the police investigation of the case holding it to be without jurisdiction. It is against this judgment and order that the :State has come in appeal to this Court on "certificate granted by tho High Court under Art.134 (l )(c).

At the time the respondent filed the petition

in the High Court only written report wae made to tho polic<> by the Sub-Inspector of police Enfor· cement Branch and on the basis of that report FirRt Information Report. waR recPrded by the

• ' I •

2 S.C.R.

Officer•in.charge of the Police Station and investiga-tion had started. There was no case pending at the time excepting that the respondent had appeared before the Court, had surrendered and had been admitted to bail. rhe powers of investiga. tion into cognizable offences are ·contained in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 154 which is in that Chapter deals· with information in cognizable offences ands. 156 with investigation into such offences and under these s~ctions the police has the statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence without authority from Magi-strate and this statutory power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered with by the exercise of power under s. 439 or under the inherent power of the court under s. 56IA of Criminal Procedure Code. As to the powers of the Judiciary in regard to statutory right of the police to inves-tigate, the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ah,mad ([1]) observed as follows:-

"The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the court to intervene in an appropri· ate case when moved. under s. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such case as the present, however, the court's functions begin when charge is preferred before it, and not until then. It lia.s sometimes been thought that s. 561A hai given increased powers to the Court which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this is not so, the section gives no µew powers, i~ {I) 119ttJ L.!Jt. 7!. J, /;. 203, ZJ2.

SW. ojW1a1 Bengai

S.N.Baallk KapurJ.

tah of Wrtrt Bc11{af

S.N. B:21ak

SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963]

only provides that those which the court already inherently poRseBBes shall be preserved and is inserted as their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the court are those expressly conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code and that no inherent powers had survived the passing of that Act".

With this interpretation, which has been put on the

statutory duties and powers of the police and of the powers of the- Court, we are in accord. The High 0ourt was in error therefore in interfering with the powers of the police in investigating into the offence which was alleged in the information sent to the Officer-in-charge of the police station.

W therefore allow this appeal and set &Bide the order of the High Court. The investigation will now proceed in accordance with law.

Appeal allawed.

HINDUSTAN IDEAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

LIFE INSURANCE OORPORATION OF INDIA

(A. K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and

J. R. M:unaoLKAR, JJ.)

/nsura11 ce-"PertJOn making the reference" --Meaning of-1./0 P'riod preacribed for moving the Corporation-EJ!ecl-Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31of1956), ••· 16(2) 48 (2) (f) -Life ln1urance Corporation Ru/ea, 1956, r. 12 Sub-rr. (•),

(ii),. (iii).

The Life Insurance business of the insurer. The Andhra Insurance Company Ltd., vcs1ed in the Life Insurance Cor-poration of India and it became entitled in compensation under s. 16 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act. The Corpo-ration made an offer of it and claimed variou• deductions. The