In Re: Budree

Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.—This revision petition has been filed by one Budree, the accused in C.C, 19445 of 1968 on the file of the Second Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras, to set aside the order of the said Magistrate overruling the preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner and to quash the proceedings pending before him.

To appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Counsel, for the Petitioner, it may be necessary to note the relevant facts resulting in the institution of prosecution against the Petitioner along with three others by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Madras. The Petitioner, during the material period was a Railway employee holding his post as clerk, Grade I, General Accounts, F.A. and C.A.O, Southern Railway, Madras, otherwise called, the New General Offices, Southern Railway, which was situate in Adams Park, Park Town in the city of Madras. For the benefit of the railway employees of the New General Offices, a Co-operative canteen has been constituted, named, as New General Offices Staff Cooperative Canteen Ltd. and it was registered as a Co-operative Society under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. Any railway employee working in the New General Offices was eligible for admission as a member and no outsider could claim admission. The management of the Society vested in a Board of Directors, the members of which shall be elected by the General Body from among the members of the Society. The several departments of the Railway administration at the New General Offices would be represented on the Board in the proportion mentioned in the by-laws of the Society. To conduct the day today business of the canteen, a Vice-President, a Secretary and a treasurer would be elected from amongst the Board of directors. The ex-Officio President would be nominated by the General Manager.

The Secretary of the canteen shall be responsible for the executive administration of the society, subject to the control of the President and he shall have powers to appoint members of the establishment as well as to fine, suspend, or dismiss them subject to the approval of the Board of Directors and the Treasurer shall be in charge of the funds and have the custody of all properties of the society. During the relevant period, the Petitioner was the Secretary and one Govindarajulu, another accused was the treasnrer. One V. Krishnamurthi, the Assistant Personuel Officer was the Ex-officio President. The President of the canteen having noticed certain irregularities in respect of payments of canteen funds, wrote a confidential letter on 12th July 1967, to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies requesting him to take immediate steps to examine the accounts of the canteen and to order an enquiry into the matter. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies having found that the affairs of the canteen were not satisfactory, ordered an enquiry on 23rd July 1967 under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, into the constitution, working and the financial condition of the said canteen, and for that purpose, he deputed a senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies. In the meanwhile the Board of Directors had resolved to place the matter before the police for investigation and the President of the Canteen had sent his report on 2nd November 1967 to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Madras, alleging temporary misappropriation of about Rs. 8800 by the Petitioner as Secretary and one Govindarajulu as Treasurer of the canteen. The report sent by the President was registered by the Superintendent of Police as Crime No. 4 of 1968 on 31st January 1968. The investigation was taken by the Officers of the Special Police Establishment and a charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioner, Govindarajulu and two others under Ss. 120 B, 409 read with 34, 477-A and 609 read with S. 109 I. P. C. The Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras took the case on file for enquiry.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised a preliminary objection before the learned Magistrate that the Special Police Establishment had no jurisdiction to investigate the offence committed by the Petitioner as the secretary of the Co-operative canteen registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, not being a department of the Central Government, without the prior consent of the State Government and as such, the investigation by the Delhi Special Police establishment, not being State Police, was illegal and that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence on the report of the Police Officer of the said establishment. The learned Magistrate after having heard the Petitioner and the State, passed an order on 22nd November, 1968, that the Government of Madras gave its consent by letter dated 23rd January, 1967 to the Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction within Madras State with regard to the offences specified in the Notification dated 6th November, 1956 which included S. 409 I.P.C. and overruled the objection by the Petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Chellaswami has challenged the legality of the investigation by the Delhi Special police Establishment of the offences committed by the Petitioner on the following grounds: namely, (1) the Delhi Special Establishment being a Police force constituted by the Central Government, has jurisdiction only to investigate into the offences committed in connection with maters concerning (i) departments of Central Government (ii) Corporations and other bodies set up and financed by the Government of India; and (iii) the departmets of the Administration in Centrally administered States; and as the offences alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner are not concerned with any one of the categories mentioned above and as they were alleged to have been committed by him in connection with a co-operative Society constituted and registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, the Special Police Establishment has no jurisdiction to investigate into the said offences, (2) the consent of the State Government as required u/s 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the ''Act) empowering the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction was not in strict accordance with Article 166 (2) of the Constitution of India; (3) the Officers of the Delhi Special Police establishment had no power to register and investigate a case in a State as they cannot be deemed to be a Station House Officer functioning within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Article

It is not in dispute that the New General Offices Staff Co-operative Canteen Ltd, of which the Petitioner was the secretary, is not a department or body set up or financed by the Central Government. The main question, therefore, is whether the Delhi Special Police Establishment will have jurisdiction to investigate into any offence committed by any person notified u/s 3 of the Act (Act 25 of 1946) as amended by the Amending Act 26 of 1952.

On the first point raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as the scope and effect of the amending Act 26 of 1952 and the Notification made thereunder have to be considered, it will be pertinent to note briefly the history and constitution of the Delhi Special Police Establishment.

During the time of the Second World War, the Governor General by virtue of the powers exercisable by him in consequence of declaration of emergency, promulgated an Ordinance (XXII of 1943), by which a special police force, called the Special Police Establishment, was constituted for the purpose of investigating offences of bribery and corruption connected with Departments of the Central Government. The Ordinance extended to the whole of British India and came into force immediately after promulgation which was on 12th July 1943. By S. 2 (4) of the said Ordinance, the power and jurisdiction exercisable by the members of the Police force were conferred on the members of the Special Police Establishment. By S. 3 of the said Ordinance, the Central Government was empowered by general or special order to specify the offences or classes of offences committed in connection with departments of the Central Government which are to be investigated by the Special Police Establishment or direct any particular offence committed in connection with the said department. Before the said ordinance had lapsed, another Ordinance No. XXII of 1946 was promulgated, by which a Special Police force for the Chief Commissioner''s province of Delhi was constituted for the investigation of the offences notified u/s 3 of the said Ordinance in the said province. This Ordinance by virtue of S. 2, limited the jurisdiction of the Special Police Establishment to the offences committed within the Chief Commissioner''s province of Delhi. But S. 3 of the new Ordinance was almost the same as S. 3 of the earlier Ordinance. By S. 5 of this Ordinance, it was made obligatory to obtain the consent of the Government of the Governor''s province of the Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, for the extension of the jurisdiction and powers of the Special Police establishment within the said province.

Ordinance No. XXII of 1946 was repealed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (Act 25 of 1946) which re-enacted the provisions of the Ordinance. The Act was adapted and amended on more than one occasion.

The Amending Act with which we are concerned, is Act 26 of 1962. The significant change made by this Amending Act in respect of S. 3 was the deletion of the words "committed in connection with matters concerning departments of the Central Government". Previous to the Amending Act 26 of 1952, S. 3 of the Act stood thus:

The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the offences or classes of offences committed in connection with matters concerning the departments of the Central Government which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment.

After the Amending Act, S. 3 reads thus:

The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police establishment.

Thus, the Amending Act removed the restrictions and enlarged the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate into any offence notified by the Central Government, and subjeet to the consent of the State Government for the exercise of powers and jurisdiction as required tinder S. 6 of the Act.

S. 5 (1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to extend to any area the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a notificatiou u/s 3. S. 6 of the Act reads thus:-

Nothing contained in S. 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in (a State not being a Union territory or railway area) without the consent of the Government of that State.

After the passing of the 1946 Act, a number of notifications u/s 3 of the Act were passed. On 6th November 1956 (Notification No. 7/5/59-AVD was issued u/s 3 of the Act of 1946. It enabled the Special Police Establishment to investigate inter alia offences under Ss. 409, 477-A etc. of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the Government of Madras consented to the Delhi Special Police Establishment exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of Madras in respect of offences mentioned in the notification of the Government of India dated 6th November 1956. The consent of the Government of Madras is evidenced by the letter written by the Deputy Secretary to Government to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, dated 23rd June 1957, in reply to the letter from the Under Secretary to the Government of India to all State Governments, dated 6th November 1956. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the scheme of the Act of 1946 would indicate that the power and jurisdiction to investigate the cases by the Special Police Establishment were extended to the whole of British India only in respect of the offences concerned with Central Government department and, therefore, the amending Act 26 of 1952, by omitting the words in Section 3 of the Act "offences committed in connection with matters concerning the departments of the Central Government" could not be taken to mean that the power and jurisdiction are extended for investigation by the Special Police establishment to all offences committed by any person in any State in India. He points out that if such unlimited and unrestricted power and jurisdiction are given to the Special Police Establishment, there will be a conflict in respect of the powers and jurisdiction exercisable by the police force of the respective States and he, therefore, submits that by omission of the words in Section 3 of the Act, it must be meant to cover all offices, institutions and Corporations under the control of the Central Government and he strongly emphasises to substantiate this point by referring to the objects and reasons for the Amending Act 26 of 1952 and the reference by the sponsor of the Amendment Bill in the Parliament.

Before considering to what extent the objects and reasons for enacting a particular legislation can be taken into consideration in aid of construction of the language in the Act, it will be relevant to note as to how and why the power and jurisdiction of the Special Police Establishment were extended to all parts of the country. Entry 39 of the Federal Legislative List in the Seventh schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935, conferred power to the Parliament to extend the powers and jurisdiction of police force belonging to one part of the country to another part. Entry 39 runs as follows:

Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any part of British India to any area in another Governor''s Province or Chief Commissioner''s Province, but not so as to enable the police of one part to exercise powers and jurisdiction elsewhere without the consent of the Government of the Province or the Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any unit to railway areas outside that unit.

Entry 80 of List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India substantially reproduces entry 39 of the Federal Legislative List and it is as follows:

Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any State to any area outside the State, but not so as to enable the police of one State, to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area outside that State without the consent of the Government of the State in which such area is situated: extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any State to railway areas outside that State.

The preamble of the Act which has been passed by virtue of Entry 39 of the Federal Legislative List runs thus:

Whereas it is necessary to constitute a special police force for the Chief Commissioner''s Province of Delhi for the investigation of certain offences committed in connection with matters concerning departments of the Central Government and to make provision for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas in British India of the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the said force in regard to the investigation of the said offences.

This preamble states that the special police farce has been constituted for the investigation of certain offences committed in connection with the matters concerning departments of the Central Government and their powers and jurisdiction were extended to investigate the said offences concerning the departments of the Central Government and it has been unambiguously and clearly stated in Section 3 of the Act that the Central Government would specify the offences committed in connection with matters concerning departments of the Central Government which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police establishment. Thus, the original object and the scheme of the Act were to retain the Special police staff as a permanent organisation, so that the said special police force would be able to conduct investigations in respect of offences concerning departments of the Central Government in all provinces with their consent.

The objects and reasons for introducing Amending Act 26 of 1952, are stated as follows:

The Delhi Special Establishment is a Central Police force constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to investigate offences of bribery and corruption committed by officers or others in departments of Central Government. It does not confer any power to deal with cases concerning-(a) Corporation and other bodies set up and financed by the Government of India; and (b) departments of the administration in centrally administered States.

"It is considered necessary that the Delhi Special Police Establishment should be empowered to investigate such offences. The amending Bill seeks to give authority to the Central Government to confer this jurisdiction"- Gaz. Ind. 1951 2 S.C.R. 632.

In Parliamentary Debates 1952, Part II, Vol. I page 1504 (Thursday, 28th February, 1952), the following record is made in respect of the motion of Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill.

"The Minister of Home Affairs and law (Mr. Dr. Katju).

I beg to move:

That the Bill further to amend the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, be taken into consideration.

This is a non-contentious measure. The reason for the introduction of the measure is to set out the statement of objects and reasons. The main purpose is to extend the operational jurisdiction of the Delhi SPE. We want to extend it by amendment of the existing Act to Corporations and other bodies set up and financed by the Government of India and departments of the administrations in Centrally Administered States. The Act as it stands is limited to the Delhi State. We want to extend it to all the Centrally administered States known as part C States. I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. I hope that the motion will be accepted."

Mr. Chairman. The question is "That the Bill further to amend the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, be taken into consideration".

Cls. 1 to 6 were added to the Bill. The title and the enacting Formula were added to the Bill.

Dr. Katju: I beg to move: "That the Bill be passed."

Mr. Chairman: The question is "That the bill be passed." The motion was adopted.

It is no doubt true that the Amendment Bill was moved for including the Corporations and Other bodies set up and financed by the Government of India and departments of the Administration in centrally administered States. But the main question is, to what extent the intention of the Parliament evidenced by the objects and reasons could be taken into consideration for the purpose of interpretation of statutes.

The well-established principle in construing the statutes is to look into the language of the section and if the words are ambiguous and capable of giving more than one meaning, it would be relevant to consider the intention of the Legislature by referring to the history and the background of such legislation and the objects and reasons to know the true meaning of such words.

The statement of objects and reasons is not admissible as an aid to the construction of a statute; but it can be referred to for the limited purpose of ascertaining the conditions prevailing at the time which actuated the sponsor of the Bill to introduce the same and the scope, extent and urgency of the evil which he seeks to remedy. The objects and reasons cannot restrict or enlarge the scope of the Act if the language in the Act does not create any doubt in respect of the scope.

By virtue of Amending Act 26 of 1952, the words "for the investigation of certain offences committed in connection with matters concerning departments of the Central Government" in Section 3 of the Act of 1946 were-omitted, thereby giving unlimited powers to the Central Government to notify any offence committed by any one in any place to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, the only vital constitutional restriction limiting the unlimited powers of the Central Government being the obtaining of the consent by the respective State Governments before notification is issued by the Central Government. There is no indication in the Amending Act placing any restriction and limiting the jurisdiction only to certain other categories such as Corporations and other bodies set up and financed by the Government of India and Departments of the Administration in centrally administered States as mentioned in the objects and reasons of the amendment. No doubt, it is true that the sponsor of the amendment felt the necessity of enlarging the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the purpose of investigation in respect of two other categories besides the departments of Central Government. That immediate object has been achieved by omitting the words which stood in the way of taking in the other two categories. But the scope of the Act by omission of the relevant words is not restricted only to those two categories mentioned in the objects and reasons of the bill. But it has enlarged the scope even more than that the sponsor of the amendment wanted to achieve.

It cannot, therefore, be said that the intention of the Parliament in introducing the amendment by omission of the words was only to restrict the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in respect of the offences concerning the categories mentioned by the sponsor in the statement of objects and reasons. On the other hand, the Parliament has given a free hand to the Central Government to notify any class of offences, without any limitation or restriction, committed by any person any-where.

It will be relevant in this context to note the two English decisions where the effect of omission of words had been discussed. The question that arose in the first case namely, in Thompson and Co., v. Goodl and Co., 1910 A.C. 409 was whether the Appellant in that case had made, ''claim for compensation'' sufficient in law to comply with the requirement of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1897. What happened in that case was that while the Appellant was working for the Respondents, the Appellant, lost sight of one of his eyes by an accident and within six months from the date of the alleged accident, gave notice to the Works'' Manager that he was claiming compensation without specifying the amount of his claim. Sub-Sec(1) of Section 2 of the said Act provided that proceedings for the recovery of compensation shall not be maintained unless ''the claim for compensation'' has been made within six months from the date of the happening of the accident. It was contended by the Respondents that the omission to specify the amount of compensation claimed by the Appellant was fatal on the ground that the provision of the Act could not be administered properly unless the claim for compensation is quantified by the claimant giving an opportunity to the employer for settling the claim and to avoid arbitration proceedings. While repelling that contention, Lord Mersey observed as following at page 420:

It is a strong thing to read into an Act of Parliament words which are not there, and in the absence of clear necessity it is a wrong thing to do.

Iu the next case, namely, in Vickers Sons end Maxim Ltd. v. Evans, 1910 A.C. 444 in a similar context while considering the effect of omission, Lord Loreburn, L.C. stated as follows:

... We are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself.

We have to consider only what the Act says and not what the Act ought to have said. The Parliament must have known that the omission of the words "for the investigation of certain offences committed in connection with the matters concerning departments of the Central Government" in S. 3 of the Act of 1946 would give unlimited power to the Central Government to notify any class of offences committed by any person anywhere. However, the Parliament must be presumed to have been aware of the consequences flowing from such omission.

Therefore, the only question on this point which remains to be considered is whether the Parliament had the power to enact, giving jurisdiction to the police force of one State to investigate into any class of offences committed by any person in different States.

"Police" is exclusively the subject of the State as found in Entry 2 in the State List of the VII Schedule of the Constitution. The Parliament, by virtue of its power to enact law in respect of item No. 80 in the Union List of the VII Schedule, can make law extending the powers and jurisdiction of members of police force belonging to one State to another area outside that State and to exercise such powers and jurisdiction with the consent of the Government of the State in which such area is situated. Under this Entry, if once a law is made extending the powers and jurisdiction of police force of one State to another State, such members of the Police force can exercise the same powers and jurisdiction of the police force or that State to which the powers and jurisdiction of such police force are extended. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Chellaswamy contended that if such unlimited and unrestricted power and jurisdiction are given to the police of a different State, there will be a conflict in respect of the powers and jurisdiction exercisable by the police force of the respective States and, therefore, the Parliament would not have intended to create a conflict between State and State and the Union and the State.

I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel that a conflict would arise in the functioning of two police forces. The safest safeguard provided under the Constitution itself is that while an enactment is made extending the powers and jurisdiction of the police of one State to the other State and when such powers and jurisdiction have to be exercised by the police force of one State in another State, the consent of that Government of the State to which the powers and jurisdiction were extended, must be obtained. The consent of the Government of the State to which such powers and jurisdiction were extended is a condition essential for the exercise of such powers. The State Government, at any time, may say that it will not give its consent even without assigning any reasons. In such a case, no police force of another State can exercise the powers and jurisdiction within the State which refused to give its consent. Even if the powers and jurisdiction of the police force of one State are extended to another State by enactment, such powers and jurisdiction cannot be exercised without the consent of the Government of that State and such powers and jurisdiction in such a case will be still born and it is only to avoid conflict, the consent is made a pre-requisite condition for the exercise of the said powers and jurisdiction. In this case, the State Government gave its consent for the exercise of powers and jurisdiction by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in respect of the offences notified by the Central Government u/s 3 of the Act. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Management of the Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurudasmal, Supdt. of Police and Others, in dealing with the scope of S. 3 of the Act, while repelling the argument that the Central Government by virtue of S. 3 of the Act can notify all possible offences thereunder and thus enjoy an arbitrary and unfettered power, observed as follows at page 345:

......the Act of 1946 creates a special police force in addition to the ordinary police force which already existed. The ordinary police force had several functions to discharge under the Police Act of 1861. Out of these several functions, only one function, viz., investigation of offences is conferred on the special police force. Even this function is not to extend to all the offences which the ordinary police force is to investigate but only to those offences which are notified by the Central Government u/s 3. It will be seen, therefore, that even in the Union Territories the investigation by the special police is limited only to the notified offences and that the special police is not concerned with any other functions of the ordinary police. As far as the States are concerned, the extension of the jurisdiction and powers of the police is dependent entirely on the consent of the State Government u/s 6. Such a consent can presumably be withdrawn by a State Government. The jurisdiction of the special police will not continue after the withdrawal of the consent. The power of the Central Government is, therefore, limited at both ends, viz., in conferring the initial jurisdiction and powers and in extending them to the States.

I respectfully agree with these observations.

On the first point, I hold that the notification issued by the Central Government u/s 3 extending its powers and jurisdiction to the Madras State in respect of the offences noted thereunder has no vice and it is good in law.

But unfortunately, it is not clear whether the State Government while giving its consent intended to permit the Delhi Special Police establishment to exercise its powers and jurisdiction even in respect of the offences committed by persons other than the employees of Central Government and the persons employed in Corporations set up and financed by the Central Government. It appears as it were that the consent of a State Government is given in respect of the offences specified in the Notification irrespective of the persons who committed the notified offences. If that were so, it would appear that the Special Police Establishment can investigate on any notified offences committed by any person which the ordinary police force can investigate, for instance, an offence u/s 409 I.P.C. has been notified u/s 3 of the Act of the Central Government as an offence which can be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment and under the notification, the Delhi Special Police Establishment can say that whoever committed an offence u/s 409 I.P.C., in Tamil Nadu, it would take up investigation. This would undoubtedly create, a conflict between the State police force and the Delhi Special Police Establishment. The State Government would not have certainly intended while it gave its consent that the Delhi Special Police Establishment can investigate into any case u/s 409 I.P.C. committed by any person in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is for the State Government to inform the Central Government clearly about its intention as to what extent it gave its consent in respect of the offences notified in the Notification. In the instant case, the Delhi Special Police Establishment has taken up investigation obviously on the view that the Petitioner was a Central Government servant being the employee of Railways, though he was the secretary of the Co-operative canteen constituted under the Madras Cooperative Societies Act. Otherwise the Delhi Special Police Establishment would not have taken up the investigation. By virtue of the notification by the Central Government to which the State Government gave its consent, the Delhi Special Police Establishment had certainly powers and jurisdiction to investigate the offence alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner and the proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that the investigation by the Delhi Special Police Establishment was bad.

The second point raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the consent of the State Government as required u/s 6 of the Act was not in strict accordance with Article 166 (2) of the Constitution of India. There is no substance in this contention. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, wrote to all State Governments requesting them to give consent for the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate into the offences notified u/s 3 of the Act, enclosing the said notification along with the letter. This letter is dated 6th November 1956. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu addressed a letter to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, on 23rd January 1937. That letter runs as follows:

Sir.

Police-consent of State Governments to the functioning of the Special Police Establishment in the States.

Reference: Shri N.B. Mandlekars''s letter 6/5/56/AVD dated. 6-11-1956

I am to say that the Madras Government agree to the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment exercising powers and jurisdiction within the Madras State with regard to the offences mentioned in the notification forwarded with the letter cited.

Yours faithfully,

Sd...........................:

for Deputy Secretary to Govt.

This letter makes it clear that the Madras Government gave its consent as required in the letter by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 6th November, 1956, The provisions under Article 166 of the Constitution of India are only directory and not mandatory. It has to be presumed that all the official acts have been regularly performed unless the contrary is shown. We can presume from the correspondence that a valid consent was given by the State Government.

The only point which now remains to be considered is whether the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment can be deemed to be station house officers within the meaning of S. 5 (3) of the Act for the purpose of investigation of the offences within their respective jurisdiction. u/s 5 (2) of Act 25 of 1946, when the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi special police establishment are extended, a member thereof may discharge the functions of a police officer in that area and shall, while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member of the police force of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force. By Amendment Act No. 40 of 1964, sub-S.(3) to S.ec 5 has been inserted and it runs as follows;

Where any such order under Sub-section (1) is made in relation to any area, then, without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub Inspector may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make, in this behalf, exercise the powers of the officer in charge of a police station in that area and when so exercising such powers, shall be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station discharging the functions of such an office within the limits of his station.

Sub-S. (3) confers powers on the members of the Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub Inspector to exercise the powers of the officer in charge of a police station and such officer shall be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer within the limits of his station.

"Police Station" is defined u/s 4 (1) (s) Code of Criminal Procedure as follows:

Police Station" means any post or place declared, generally or specially, by the State Government to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf.

It appears that the State Government has declared certain places to be the police stations in resp ct of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the areas mentioned therein where the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment can exercise their powers and jurisdiction. It is, therefore, clear that by virtue of S. 5 (3) the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of the rank of Sub Inspector and above are made officers in charge police station discharging their functions within the limits of the police station mentioned in the notification and, therefore, they have power to investigate into the offences mentioned in the notification u/s 3 of the Act within their respective limits and they can exercise all the function of the Officer in charge of the police station.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

(The Crl. Rs. No. 1383 of 1968 having been posted this day for being spoken, to the court made the following Order-17th September 1971)

After the judgment was delivered, this matter has been posted for being spoken to. Now I find the observations made by me: "It appears that the State Government has declared certain places to be police station in respect of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the areas mentioned therein where the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment can exercise their powers and jurisdiction" is not correct. The learned Advocate General, who appears for the Respondent, states that there is no such notification by the State Government. That sentence alone will be deleted from the judgment.