Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Cr. R.C No. 206 of 1953, Cr. M.P No. 371 of 1953,March 17, 1953

Attorney(S)

V.V Srinivasa Ayyangar & M.V Ganapathy for Petrs.
State Prosecutor, for State.

Judges

Somasundaram, J.

Acts

S. 31 of the Madras City Police Act, certain sections of the Criminal Procedure Code such as Ss. 523, 524
provisions in the City Police Act making S. 93-A
S. 7 of Madras City Police Act
S. 7 of the City Police Act,
Public Safety Act persons
Madras City Police Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

These two petitions concern the arrest and subsequent release on bail of one Ramanath Bholgothra. He was taken into custody by the Madras Police on 6-2-1953 and released on bail by an order of this Court dated 11-2-1953. At the time of his arrest the Madras Police's only information was a communication from the Hyderabad Police that the person was wanted by the Jammu & Kashmir Police. The Madras Police made the arrest under S. 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

After release, Ramanath applied to the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 26-2-1953 to cancel the bonds executed by him and his sureties. The Chief Presidency Magistrate declined to cancel those bonds on the basis that bail had been granted by this Court and referred the petitioner back to this Court. The petition for cancellation of bonds was filed as Cr. R. C. No. 206 of 1953.

Meanwhile, a warrant for the arrest of Ramanath issued by the Additional District Magistrate of Jammu was received by the Commissioner of Police, Madras City. The State Prosecutor filed Cr. M.P No. 371 of 1953 seeking cancellation of the bail granted by this Court and permission to arrest the person named in the warrant. After notice, both applications were heard together by the Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Commissioner of Police, by virtue of being a Presidency Magistrate under S. 7 of the Madras City Police Act, is a "court" to which the Code of Criminal Procedure applies and, accordingly, whether he can execute a warrant issued by an external court under S. 93-A of the Code.
Whether the particular warrant issued by the Additional District Magistrate of Jammu & Kashmir (which on its face implicated the Public Safety Act of Jammu & Kashmir) could lawfully be executed in Madras — specifically, whether the warrant contained sufficient particulars to justify execution in Madras and whether an arrest in Madras for detention in Jammu & Kashmir under the Public Safety Act was permissible.

Arguments of the Parties

State Prosecutor's Arguments

The State Prosecutor contended that because the covering letter from the Inspector General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir Government resulted in the warrant being received by the Commissioner of Police, and because under S. 7 of the Madras City Police Act the Commissioner is a Presidency Magistrate, the Commissioner must be considered a "court" within the meaning of S. 93-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the Commissioner could execute the external warrant.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any specific legal arguments advanced by the petitioner (Ramanath Bholgothra) beyond his application for cancellation of bonds and the Chief Presidency Magistrate's referral to this Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Clarke v. Brojendra Kishore Roy, 1912 M.W.N 760 (Privy Council)	Illustrates that the Code often uses the terms "Court" and "Magistrate" interchangeably; aids in understanding statutory language referring to "Court" and "Magistrate."	The Court cited the case to explain the ordinary usage of "court" and "magistrate" in the Code, but then distinguished the position of Commissioners of Police who are Presidency Magistrates by virtue of office from Presidency Magistrates appointed under S. 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Mohan Kumaramangalam v. State, 1951 M.W.N 81; cr. 21	Holds that if a person is arrested in one State because he is wanted by another State for detention in that other State, such arrest is illegal.	The Court applied that principle to conclude that, where the warrant indicated detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, the respondent could not be arrested in Madras for the purpose of detention in Jammu & Kashmir; this supported dismissal of the State's application to cancel bail and permit arrest.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning proceeded in a stepwise manner focused on statutory construction and procedural safeguards for executing warrants issued by external courts:

The Court examined the form and addressee of the warrant: it was in Urdu, addressed to the Court Inspector, Jammu, and contained no detailed particulars of the offence beyond referencing the Public Safety Act of Jammu & Kashmir. The warrant had been forwarded, via a covering letter from the Inspector General of Police of Jammu & Kashmir, to the Commissioner of Police, Madras, who entrusted its execution to a local Inspector.
The Court identified S. 93-A of the Criminal Procedure Code as the specific statutory provision governing the execution in one territory of a summons or warrant issued by an external court. Clause (3) of S. 93-A requires that when an internal court receives such a warrant, it shall cause it to be executed "as if it were a summons or warrant received by it from another internal court," and that execution must follow the procedures in Ss. 85 and 86 "so far as possible."
The Court addressed the State Prosecutor's contention that the Commissioner of Police, being a Presidency Magistrate under S. 7 of the Madras City Police Act, should be treated as an internal court under S. 93-A. The Court analysed the distinction between (a) Presidency Magistrates appointed under S. 18 of the Code (which establishes Presidency Magistrates as one of the classes of criminal courts in S. 6) and (b) officials (such as the Commissioner and his deputies) who are described as Presidency Magistrates by virtue of their statute-based office.
The Court turned to S. 1(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which expressly excludes the Commissioner of Police in the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay (and certain police forces) from the operation of the Code "unless" the Provincial Government issues a notification extending provisions of the Code to those excepted persons. The Court observed that the Code makes express special provisions where it intends to extend particular sections to municipal police authorities (giving as examples several specifically enumerated sections), and that in the absence of a specific provision or a Provincial notification, the general prohibition in S. 1(2) applies.
The Court examined the Madras City Police Act and found that, although that Act can and does make specific CrPC provisions applicable in discrete respects (for example S. 31 renders certain CrPC sections applicable; S. 51-A(3) empowers the Commissioner or Deputy to exercise powers under specified CrPC sections), there was no provision in the Madras City Police Act making S. 93-A applicable to the Commissioner of Police, nor was there any notification by the Provincial Government under the proviso to S. 1(2) extending the Code to the Commissioner.
From these statutory materials the Court concluded two separate but related points: first, the Commissioner of Police (by virtue of office) is not a "court" of the kind contemplated by the Code for purposes of S. 93-A; and second, S. 93-A does not apply to the Commissioner of Police in Madras because of the express exclusion in S. 1(2) of the Code and the absence of enabling notification or specific statutory incorporation in the City Police Act.
The Court added an independent ground: the warrant indicated that the person was sought under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (the Court noted uncertainty as to the exact section number appearing in the translations), and the warrant did not set out particulars or a description of any offence. The Public Safety Act characteristically permits detention rather than trial; relying on the Mohan Kumaramangalam precedent, the Court concluded that an arrest in Madras for the purpose of detention in another State under such an Act would be illegal. If the person were sought for trial, the warrant must specify the offence and particulars and S. 93-A must be strictly followed.
Combining the statutory construction conclusion (S. 93-A does not apply to the Commissioner and he is not an internal court for this purpose) with the procedural deficiency of the warrant (lack of particulars and the detention-character of the Public Safety Act), the Court held that the warrant could not be lawfully executed against Ramanath in Madras.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

Cr. M.P No. 371 of 1953 (State Prosecutor's petition) is dismissed; Cr. R. C. No. 206 of 1953 (petition for cancellation of bonds) is allowed.

Implications and consequences:

The direct effect is that the State's application to cancel bail and to permit Ramanath's arrest under the Jammu & Kashmir warrant is refused; accordingly, the warrant as transmitted cannot be executed against him in Madras.
Because the State's application failed, the petition for cancellation of the bail bonds (Cr. R. C. No. 206 of 1953) is allowed and the bail bonds executed by the petitioner and his sureties are cancelled.
The Court's decision rests on statutory construction of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Madras City Police Act, and on the insufficiency of the warrant (both in form and substance). The opinion does not purport to create a new precedent beyond applying established principles; rather it enforces strict compliance with S. 93-A and the territorial limitations expressed in S. 1(2) of the Code, and reiterates the prior holding (Mohan Kumaramangalam) that arrests in one State for detention in another State under a Public Safety-type law are improper.

Order by the Court: Petition allowed. (N.T.R. — Petition allowed.)

Show full summary ...

Ramanath Bholgothra (Of Jammu) v. State

The above two petitions relate to the arrest of one Ramanath Bholgothra of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. He was taken into custody by the Madras Police on 6-2-1953 and released on bail by an order of this court dated 11-2-1953. At the time of the arrest the only information which the Madras Police had was a communication from the Hyderabad Police to the Madras Police that the person was wanted by the Jammu and' Kashmir Police. The Madras Police arrested him under S. 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, as already stated, he was released on bail on an order of this Court dated 11-2-1953. After the release he made an application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 26-2-1953 for cancellation of the bonds executed by him and the sureties. As bail was granted by this court, the Chief Presidency Magistrate declined to cancel the bonds holding that he had no power to do so and referred the petitioner to this Court. Against this order the petition Cr. R. C, No. 206 of 1953 is preferred for cancellation of the bonds. In the meantime, a warrant for the arrest of Ramanath Bholgothra issued by the Additional District Magistrate of Jammu in Kashmir State has been received by the Commissioner of Police, Madras City. The State Prosecutor has made an application in Cr. M.P No. 371 of 1953 for the cancellation of the bail granted to the said person and for permission to arrest. After notice to the other side, both the applications were heard together.

The warrant that has been issued by the Additional District Magistrate of Jammu is in Urdu and a translation of it was furnished by the State Prosecutor. I had it translated in English by the Court translator also; and according to the court translation the warrant reads as follows :—

Judicial

For the arrest of accused.

Warrant for the arrest of accused.

In the court of the Additional District Magistrate.

Jammu.

The State

Ramnath and others.

Offence under S. 49 (?) Public Security Act 34 (?) Jammu-Kashmir Defence Act.

Court Inspector, Jammu.

One Mussammath Ram Nath Bholgothra, advocate, son of Amarnath, Khathri by caste, resident of Jammu is charged for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, you are hereby ordered to cause the arrest of the said Ramnath Bholgothra, Advocate Jammu, and to produce him before me.

You are hereby warned to carry out this. Dated 2nd Bhogi …………. (?)

Signature.

The Commissioner of Police, Jammu.

The original is retained for the purpose of keeping on the file.

Sd. in English.

It is clear from the terms of the warrant that it is addressed to the Court Inspector, Jammu This has been forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Madras, by the Inspector General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir Government with a covering letter. The Commissioner of Police thereupon entrusted it to one of the Inspectors of Police for execution. The warrant is now sought to be executed after getting the bail granted to Ramnath Bholgothra cancelled.

The procedure which governs the execution of such warrants is laid down in S. 93-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Cl. (3) of S. 93-A relates to warrants issued by an external court and it is as follows;

“(3) Where an internal court has received for service or execution a summons to or a warrant for the arrest of, an accused person issued by an external court, it shall cause the same to be served or executed as if it were a summons or warrant received by it from another internal court for service or execution within the local limits of its jurisdiction; and where any such warrant of arrest has been so executed, the person arrested shall so far as possible, be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Ss 85 and 86.”

That the court of the Additional District Magistrate, Jammu & Kashmir is an external court within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not disputed. Such warrant can be executed only by the internal court when it is received by it for execution. The warrant shows that it is addressed only, to the Court Inspector, Jammu and it is not addressed to any internal court within the meaning of that term contained in S. 93-A.

It is contended by the State Prosecutor that by the covering letter of the Inspector General of Police Jammu & Kashmir Government the warrant has been received by the Commissioner of Police and as under S. 7 of the City Police Act, he is a presidency Magistrate, he must be considered to be a court within the meaning of S. 93 A of the Code, and therefore, the Commissioner of Police in his capacity as a Presidency Magistrate can execute the warrant.

The question to be considered is whether the Commissioner of Police, who by virtue of his office is a Presidency Magistrate, is a court to which the Criminal Procedure Code applies.

There is no definition of ‘Court’ in any of the Acts, and, certainly, there is none in the Criminal Procedure Code. But a ‘Court’ is ordinarily understood as a place where justice is judicially administered'. (See Stroud's Judicial Dictionary). In Clarke v. Brojendra Kishore Roy 1912 M.W.N 760 their Lordships of the Privy Council have stated that “for the sake of brevity the Code uses the term ‘Court’ and Magistrate' generally, if not always, as convertible terms.” Under the Code, apart from the High Court only five classes of Criminal Courts are constituted and they are mentioned in S. 6 of the Code. The Court of Presidency Magistrate is one of them. Ss. 9 to 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with the establishment of Courts and appointment of magistrates. S. 18 deals with the appointment of Presidency Magistrates. S. 18 (1) is as follows:

“The Provincial Government shall from time to time, appoint a sufficient number of persons (hereinafter called Presidency Magistrates) to be Magistrates for each of the Presidency-towns, and shall appoint one of such persons to be Chief Presidency Magistrate for each such town.”

Presidency Magistrates appointed under the above section are the Courts of Presidency Magistrates mentioned in S. 6 and the Presidencey Magistrates mentioned in S. 6 are appointed under S. 18. In the Code wherever there is reference to the Presidency Magistrate it could only mean and refer to the Presidency Magistrate appointed under S. 18 of the Code. The Commissioner and his deputies who are Presidency Magistrates by virtue of their office are not Presidency Magistrates appointed under S. 18. Though they may have the powers of Presidency Magistrates by virtue of of S. 7 they are not courts of Presidency Magistrates under the “Code.

In S. 93-A the expression ‘internal court’ is defined as ‘any court in the territories to which this Code extends’. S. 1, cl (2) defines the scope and extent of the Code and it is as follows :—

“It extends to the whole of India except the States of Jammu & Kashmir and Manipur; but in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing herein contained shall affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force, or shall apply to:—

(a) the Commissioner of Police in the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, or the Police in the towns of Calcutta and Bombay.

(b) heads of villages in the State of Madras;

Provided that the Provincial Government may, if it thinks fit, by notification in the official Gazette, extend any of the provisions of this Code, with any necessary modifications, to such excepted persons.”

According to the above clause, unless there is a specific provision to the contrary the Code does not apply to the Commissioner of Police in the City of Madras. It is needless to mention that a specific provision to the contrary must be made in the Code itself, in fact, wherever the Code is extended to the Police at Calcutta it is specially mentioned. See St. 54 Cl. (2) 55 (2) 56 (2), 83, 84 (4) and 85 of the Code. The above sections are special provisions to the contrary to in Cl. (2). of S. 1. Unless, therefore, there is a special provision, making S. 93 A applicable to the Commissioner of Police it will fall within the general prohibition, and the Code will not apply to the Commissioner of Police. It is not contended that there is any notification by the Provincial Government extending the provisions of this Code to the Commissioner of Police. There is no provision in the Madras City Police Act by which the Code is made applicable to the Commissioner of Police By S. 31 of the Madras City Police Act, certain sections of the Criminal Procedure Code such as Ss. 523, 524 and 525 have been made applicable to the police in the city. Similarly by S. 51-A Cl. (3) of the Act the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner has been empowered to exercise all or any of the powers of court under Ss. 75 to 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This shows that the Madras City Police Act may provide for the application of any of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Commissioner of Police. In the absence of such a provision the alternative is that there should be a notification as required by the proviso to S. 1 Cl (2) of the Code. There are no provisions in the City Police Act making S. 93-A apply to the Commissioner of Police. Nor is there any notification of the Government under S. 1 Cl. (2) proviso. In these circumstances apart from the fact that the Commissioner of Police though he may be a presidency magistrate by virtue of S. 7 of Madras City Police Act cannot by any means be called a court, on account of the prohibition contained in Cl. (2) of S. 1. the provisions of the Code do not apply to him. Hence S. 93-A does not apply to the Commissioner of Police and S. 93-A is the only provision under which warrants received from external courts can be executed. If it does not apply to the Commissioner of Police, he cannot execute the warrant. Both for the reason that the Commissioner of Police is not a court and that S. 93-A of the Code does not apply to him, the warrant that is now sought to be executed by him cannot be executed against the person for whose arrest the warrant has been issued.

There is one other reason which stands in the way of the warrant being executed against the respondent, in C.M.P No. 371 of 1952. It is clear from the warrant issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Jammu & Kashmir Government that the person sought to be arrested is wanted under the Public Safety Act No. 32, Jammu & Kashmir Government Rules, The section of the Act under which he is sought to be arrested is S. 29 according to the copy given by the State Prosecutor S. 49 and according to the court translation the warrant as already stated is in Urdu. Whether it is S. 29 or 49 there is nothing to indicate what that offence is. The particulars of the offence are not mentioned, nor is there any description of the offence. But it is apparent that the person sought to be arrested is wanted under the Public Safety Act of that State. Generally under the Public Safety Act persons are arrested for detention and not for trial for any offence. In such cages, it has been held by a Bench of this court consisting of Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed JJ. in Mohan Kumaramangalam v. State 1951 M.W.N 81; cr. 21 that if a person is arrested in one State because he is wanted by another State for detention in that State such an arrest is illegal. If this is so, in the case of State inter se within the Union a fortiori the respondent in Cr. M P. No. 371 of 1953 cannot be arrested in Madras for the purpose of detention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. If the person is wanted for an offence, it must be clearly stated in the warrant, with necessary particulars and discriptions and S. 93-A must be strictly followed.

For the above reasons, lam of opinion that the warrant that has been sent by the Additional District Magistrate, Jammu & Kashmir Government under which Ramnath Bolgothra is now sought to be arrested cannot be executed against him in this State. The petition perferred by the State Prosecutor, Cr. M.P No. 371 of 1953, is therefore dismissed.

In view of the order in Cr. M.P No. 371 of 1953, I must allow the petition, Cr. R.C No. 206 of 1953. The bail bonds executed by the petitioner and by the sureties will be cancelled.

N.T.RPetition allowed

Ramanath Bholgothra (Of Jammu) v. State

Structured Summary of the Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

State Prosecutor's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ramanath Bholgothra (Of Jammu) v. State

Comments