- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Virendra Singh And Others v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This petition concerns the First Information Report (F.I.R) dated 12-7-2002 under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C), alleging that the petitioners threatened to kill the first informant. The petitioners challenged the classification of the offence under Section 506, I.P.C as cognizable and non-bailable, which was based on a 1989 notification by the Uttar Pradesh Government. The court considered the validity of this notification and the legal status of the offence under the applicable criminal procedure laws.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Uttar Pradesh Government's notification dated July 31, 1989, declaring Section 506, I.P.C offences as cognizable and non-bailable, is legally valid.
- Whether Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 empowers the State Government to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by notification.
- The proper classification of offences under Section 506, I.P.C in light of the repeal of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the legal validity of the 1989 notification issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, which declared offences under Section 506, I.P.C to be cognizable and non-bailable. The court noted that Section 10(1) and 10(2) of the 1932 Act empowered the State Government to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by notification to declare certain offences cognizable and non-bailable. However, since the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 was repealed and replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 10 of the 1932 Act became redundant and no longer conferred such power.
Further, the court held that a notification cannot amend a Parliamentary enactment such as the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which can only be amended by another Act or Ordinance. Additionally, any amendment to a Central Act by a State Act requires the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, which was absent here. Therefore, the 1989 notification was illegal.
The court also pointed out the anomalous situation created by the notification, where offences involving actual physical harm (Sections 323, 324, 325, I.P.C) are bailable, but mere threats under Section 506 are non-bailable and cognizable, which it found unreasonable.
Holding and Implications
The court declared the 1989 Uttar Pradesh Government notification making Section 506, I.P.C cognizable and non-bailable to be illegal and invalid. Consequently, Section 506, I.P.C must be treated as a bailable and non-cognizable offence.
The decision directly affects the classification and procedural treatment of offences under Section 506, I.P.C in Uttar Pradesh, restoring their status as bailable and non-cognizable. No broader precedent beyond this interpretation was established.
M. Katju, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Counsel.
2. This petition has been held against the First Information Report dated 12-7-2002 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) under Section 506, I.P.C In this F.I.R the allegation is that the petitioners are threatening to kill the first informant.
3. It is not necessary for us to quash the F.I.R in view of the observations and directions made below. Section 506, I.P.C as mentioned in the first schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is declared to be a non cognizable and bailable offence. However, it appears that by U.P Govt, notification No. 777.VIII 9-4(2) 87 dated July 31, 1989, published in the U.P Gazette, Extra, Part-4, Section (kha) dated 2nd August, 1989 it was declared to be a cognizable and non bailable offence. This notification states as follows.
“In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 (Act No. XXIII of 1932) read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. 10 of 1897) and in supersession of the notifications issued in this behalf, the Governor is pleased to declare that any offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code when committed in any district of Uttar Pradesh, shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974). be cognizable and non bailable.”
4. The above notification purports to have been issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932. Section 10(1) of the said Act states as follows:—
“The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any offence punishable under Ss. 186, 188, 189, 190, 228, 295-A, 298, 505, 506 or 507 of the Indian Penal Code, when committed in any area specified in the notification shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be cognizable, and thereupon the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall, while such notification remains in force, be deemed to be amended accordingly.
Section 10(2) of the Act states:
“(2) The (State Government may, in like manner and subject to the like conditions, and with the like effect declare that an offence punishable under Section 188 or Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code shall be non bailable.”
5. Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 gives power to the State Government to declare certain offences including Section 506, I.P.C to be cognizable and non-bailable and on issuance of the said notification the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 shall stand amended accordingly.
6. Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 does not give power to the State Government to amend by a notification any part of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973. Since the Cr. P.C of 1898 has been repealed by Section 484 of the Cr. P.C Act, 1973 we are of the opinion that Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 has become redundant and otiose. Hence in our opinion no notification can now be made under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. Any such notification is illegal for the reason given above. Hence we declare notification No. 777.VIII-9 4(2)-87. dated July 31, 1989. published in the U.P Gazette, Extra Part 4, Section (kha), dated 2nd August, 1989 by which Section 506, I.P.C was made cognizable and non bailable to be illegal. Section 506, I.P.C has to be treated as bailable and non cognizable offence.
7. There is another reason also why the aforesaid notification of 1989 is illegal. The Cr. P.C of 1973 is a Parliamentary enactment. An act can only be amended by another Act or by an Ordinance, not by a simple notification. Moreover, a Central Act cannot be amended even by a U.P Act unless the assent of the President is taken vide Art. 254(2) of the Constitution. The notification of 1989 purports to amend a Central Act (the Cr. P.C of 1973) even without the assent of the President.
8. It is surprising that while Sections 323, 324 and 325, I.P.C are bailable offences the State Government has chosen to declare by this illegal notification of 1989 that Section 506, I.P.C is a non bailable and cognizable offence. This means that if person breaks someone's hand, or attacks him with a knife on his leg or hand he will be granted bail by the police on his mere request, but if he gives a threat he will be arrested and will have to apply for bail to the Court. This is an anomalous situation. At any event, we are of the opinion that the notification dated 31-7-1989 issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 making Section 506, I.P.C cognizable and non bailable is illegal.
9. This petition is disposed of accordingly. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Principal Home Secretary, Principal Law Secretary and the D.G.P, U.P The D.G.P will communicate it to all S.S Ps. and S. Ps. in the State, who in turn will communicate it to all Station Officers of police stations in the State. A copy shall also be sent to all the District Judges of this State.
10. Order accordingly.
Alert