Ramesh and Others vs State

V.N. Varma, J.—These are two revisions--Criminal Revision No. 1386 of 1973 and Criminal Revision No. 1387-- which 1 propose to dispose of together as they have arisen out of one and the same judgment and also raise common questions of law and facts.

The applicants of both these revisions were arrested on the basis of search warrants issued u/s 5 of the Public Gambling Act by S.P. (City) Kanpur. After investigation they were sent up to stand their trial in the court of Additional City Magistrate, Kanpur. While cases against them were still at the preliminary stage, they moved applications for quashing the proceedings on the ground that S.P. (City) Kanpur was not competent to issue warrants of search u/s 5 of the Public Gambling Act and as such the cases started against them on the basis of those search warrants were not legally maintainable. Their contention is that u/s 5 of the Public Gambling Act, besides a Magistrate, only the District Superintendent of Police could issue a search warrant and S.P. (City) Kanpur being not the District Superintendent of Police, the search warrants issued by him were not in accordance with law, and, therefore, their prosecution u/s 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act stood vitiated. The learned Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that in view of Government Notification No. 1801/VIII-E-1070-62 dated 20--4--68 published in Gazette dated 15--5--68, S.P. (City) Kanpur was fully competent to issue search warrants u/s 5 of the Public Gambling Act. In support of this contention he first drew my attention to the meaning of the expressions "District Superintendent of Police" as given in Section 1 of the Police Act, 1861. According to Section 1 "District Superintendent of Police" shall include any Assistant District Superintendent or other person appointed by general or special order of the State Government to perform all or any of the duties of a District Superintendent of Police under this Act in any District.

From the above it means that if any police officer has been appointed by the State Government under any order or notification to perform the duties of a District Superintendent of Police under the Police Act, he will be deemed to be a District Superintendent of Police under the said Act. Notification No. 1801 /VIII-E-1070-62 dated 20--4--68 referred to above lays down as follows:

In pursuance of the provisions of Section 1 of the Police Act, 1861 (Act No. 4 of 1861), read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. 10 of 1897) and in supersession of Government Notification No. 205/VIII-E-1070-62 dated 2--3--1967, the Governor is pleased to order that all Additional Superintendents of Police, Superintendents of Police, Rural Areas and Superintendents of Police City posted in various Districts of the State shall perform all the duties of a District Superintendent of Police under the said Act, within the limits of their local jurisdiction.

From the above it follows that all the Superintendents of Police (City) which certainly include S.P. City Kanpur also have been empowered by the State Government to perform all the duties of the District Superintendent of Police under the Police Act within the limits of their local jurisdiction. Section 23 of the Police Act enumerates the duties of police officers. It reads as follows;--

It shall be the duty of every police officer promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace; to prevent the commission of offences and public nuisances; to detect and bring offenders to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient ground exists; and it shall be lawful for every police officer, for any of the purposes mentioned in this section, without a warrant, to enter and inspect any drinking shop, gaming house or other place of resort of loose and disorderly characters.

One will thus see that one of the duties of the District Superintendent of police under the Police Act is "to detect and bring offenders to justice". Obviously these words are wide enough to include the power to issue a warrant u/s 5 of the Public Gambling Act. As S.P. Kanpur had been empowered by the State Government to perform all the duties of a District Superintendent of Police, he was well within his rights in the present case to issue search warrants u/s 5 of the Public Gambling Act. On the basis of the search warrants so issued the applicants have been apprehended and sent up to stand their trial u/s 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act. Their prosecution was in no way illegal and the courts below, therefore, very rightly rejected the applications made on their behalf for quashing the proceedings against them. The decision rendered in State of U.P. v. Lal Bahadur 1968 AWR 189 has now lost its relevance after the issuance of the Government Notification No. 1801/VIII-E-1070-62 dated 20-4--68.

In the result I find no force in these revisions and dismiss them accordingly. Stay order dated 17--8-- 73 is vacated.