Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Cr. Rev. No. 1283 of 1984

Attorney(S)

Dipak Kumar Sengupta
Amitabha Ganguly
S.R.Majumdar

Judges

Ajit Kumar Sengupta
J.N Hore, JJ.

Acts

S. 9 of the Calcutta Police Act and S. 3 of the Calcutta Suburban Police Act, 1866).
CALCUTTA SUBURBAN POLICE ACT 1866
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judicial Opinion Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This revisional application challenges the order dated 17 May 1984 of the learned Judge, Special Court, which had rejected the accused's contention that the proceedings initiated under the Essential Commodities Act for alleged violation of paragraph 21 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 were a nullity. The accused's core contention was that the initiating officer — a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch — lacked jurisdiction under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 because, the accused argued, only Sub-Inspectors or officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch (not the District Enforcement Branch) could act as Inspectors of Fertilisers and initiate proceedings.

The revisional court (Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J., with J. N. Hore, J. agreeing) examined prior judicial decisions and a series of government notifications (dated 17 Sept. 1974; corrigendum 14 Oct. 1977; amendments of 17 Feb. 1983 and 1 Feb. 1984) bearing on who was appointed as Inspectors of Fertilisers under paragraph 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957. The search, seizure and charge-sheet in the present matter were carried out by a Sub-Inspector attached to the District Enforcement Branch on 17 Oct. 1982.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether proceedings under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 (for violation of para 21) initiated by a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch are void for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether, for the purpose of paragraph 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957, the appointment/authority to act as an "Inspector of Fertilisers" extended to Sub-Inspectors attached to the District Enforcement Branch at the time of the search (17 October 1982), in light of the series of government notifications.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The proceedings are void because they were initiated by a Sub-Inspector attached to the District Enforcement Branch who, the petitioner contends, was not an authorised "Inspector of Fertilisers" under paragraph 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957.
Only Sub-Inspectors (or officers above that rank) attached to the Enforcement Branch — not the District Enforcement Branch — could lawfully inspect, seize and initiate prosecutions under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957.
The petitioner relied on the Division Bench decision in Kamala Ranjan Dey v. The State and the reasoning in Bimal Ranjan Roy v. State of West Bengal to support the contention that inspections and seizures done by officers not properly appointed under the relevant notifications were illegal and that consequent proceedings were void ab initio.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any specific counter-arguments advanced on behalf of the State or other respondents.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kamala Ranjan Dey v. The State ((1982) 86 Cal WN 917 : (1983 Cri LJ NOC 90))	Applied principle that inspection and seizure by an officer not properly appointed as an Inspector of Fertilisers under the relevant notification render the inspection, seizure and subsequent proceedings illegal and void.	The Division Bench in that case found the petitioner's point well-founded on the basis of earlier decisions and a 1974 notification; the present court considered that decision as supportive of the proposition that attachment and official appointment under the notification determine jurisdiction.
Bimal Ranjan Roy v. State of West Bengal ((1978) 2 Cal LJ 300 : (1980 Cri LJ NOC 24))	Held by a learned single Judge that inspection and seizure made without authority by an Inspector of the District Enforcement Branch were illegal and that subsequent investigation and cognizance were illegal and void.	The Division Bench had approved the single Judge's reasoning; the present court noted that the Division Bench had, as a matter of fact, approved that reasoning and treated it as persuasive in determining whether the officer who conducted the search in the present matter had jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through a focused, fact-driven analysis grounded in the language of paragraph 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 and the sequence of government notifications that purportedly appointed particular categories of police officers as Inspectors of Fertilisers.

Key elements of the court's analytical path, as stated in the opinion:

Paragraph 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 permits the State Government and/or Central Government to appoint by notification persons to be Inspectors of Fertilisers and to define their local jurisdiction.
The Government of West Bengal issued a notification dated 17 September 1974 which (as originally worded and as later amended) specified which officers would be entitled to act as Inspectors of Fertilisers. The 1974 notification included "The Sub-Inspector of Police and all officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached to Enforcement Branch" (as the entry relevant to serial No. 21).
That notification was amended by corrigendum on 14 October 1977 to refine the wording to "The Sub-Inspectors of Police and all officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached to Enforcement Branch." The court records additional amendments on 17 February 1983 and 1 February 1984 which expressly included the District Enforcement Branch among those attachments whose Sub-Inspectors and officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector were appointed as Inspectors of Fertilisers.
The court emphasized the chronology: the search and seizure conducted in the present case were on 17 October 1982 — before the 17 February 1983 amendment and the 1 February 1984 notification that extended appointment to officers attached to the District Enforcement Branch.
The court further analysed institutional organisation: Enforcement Branch (Calcutta) and District Enforcement Branch are different establishments under the West Bengal police; attachment to one precludes simultaneous attachment to the other. Thus whether an individual was "attached to the Enforcement Branch" or to the "District Enforcement Branch" at the material time was decisive for jurisdictional purposes under the notification scheme.
Applying the above, the court concluded that a Sub-Inspector attached to the District Enforcement Branch who conducted the search and initiated the proceedings on 17 October 1982 was not authorised by the then-effective notification(s) to act as an Inspector of Fertilisers under paragraph 19. The court relied on the reasoning in the earlier authorities (Bimal Ranjan Roy and Kamala Ranjan Dey) which had treated inspections and seizures by persons not validly appointed under the notifications as illegal and proceedings founded on such acts as void.
Because the officer who carried out the search/ seizure and initiated the charge-sheet was not authorised at the material time, the court held the proceedings to be without jurisdiction and therefore quashed them.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The revisional petition is allowed; the Rule is made absolute and the proceedings initiated by the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch are quashed. Petition allowed.

Implications:

Direct effect: The specific proceedings against the petitioner founded on the search, seizure and charge-sheet dated 17 October 1982 are quashed for want of jurisdiction because the officer who initiated them was not appointed as an Inspector of Fertilisers under the notifications in force at that time.
Scope and precedent: The judgment rests on application of existing notifications and prior decisions; the opinion resolves the jurisdictional question as it applied to the facts and timing here. The opinion does not set out any broader novel legal principle beyond applying paragraph 19 and the controlling notifications and prior case law; it confines itself to the direct legal consequence (quashing of proceedings) under the facts presented.

This summary is confined to and derived exclusively from the content of the provided opinion. No information has been added beyond what is contained in that opinion.

Show full summary ...

Santa Kumar Das And Another v. The State .

Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.:— This revisional application is directed against the order dt. May 17, 1984 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, rejecting the contention of the accused that the proceeding initiated under the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of Para 21 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 is a nullity. The only contention which has been urged in support of this rule is that since the case was initiated by a Sub-Inspector attached to the District Enforcement Office, the proceedings are void. The contention is that only Sub-Inspector or officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch could initiate proceedings for the purpose of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957.

2. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Division Bench decision in Kamala Ranjan Dey v. The State reported in (1982) 86 Cal WN 917 : (1983 Cri LJ NOC 90). In that case the same contention was raised. The contention which has been raised in that case is:

“As Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch, who investigated the case was not an Inspector within the meaning of paragraph 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957, he had no authority to inspect the fertilizer shop of the petitioner or seize the fertiliser which was stocked there and thus was also not competent to investigate the case and submit charge-sheet and as the entire proceeding, taken in investigating the alleged offence, resulting in submission of charge-sheet, was illegal and void ab initio, the Sub-Inspector having no authority to function as Inspector within the meaning of paragraph 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, the charge-sheet which was filed before the learned Magistrate as a result of such investigation, was illegal and the learned Magistrate could not validly take cognizance of the alleged offence on the basis thereof.”

3. The Division Bench held as follows:—

“After hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and considering the decision in Bimal Ranjan Roy v. State of West Bengal reported in (1978) 2 Cal LJ 300 : (1980 Cri LJ NOC 24), in which a learned single Judge of this Court has held that the inspection and seizure made without authority by an Inspector of the District Enforcement Branch were illegal and consequently the investigation carried on thereafter and cognizance of the case taken became illegal and void and inasmuch as under a notification being No. 2792-Fert. dt. 17th Sept., 1974, published in the Calcutta Gazette (Extraordinary) dt. Sept. 17, 1974 issued by the Department of Agriculture and Community Development. In exercise of power conferred by paragraph 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 and Item 21 thereof the Sub-Inspector of Police and all officers above the rank of Inspector attached to Enforcement Branch were appointed under the said paragraph of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 throughout the State of West Bengal in supersession of previous notifications on the subject, we hold that the point raised on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and should prevail. It appears that the learned Magistrate did not take into account the aforesaid Notification of 1974 while he overruled a similar objection raised before him on behalf of the accused and it also appears that he did not apply his mind to the earlier Notification No. 501 dt. 12th February, 1969 in which also only officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch were appointed Inspectors of Fertilizer for the purpose of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957.”

4. It would appear that the Division Bench has, as a matter of fact, approved the reasoning and conclusion of the learned single Judge in Bimal Ranjan Roy v. State of West Bengal reported in (1978) 2 Cal LJ 300 : (1980 Cri LJ NOC 24). There also the following contention was raised:

“The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Inspector of Fertilizer has been appointed by Notification No. 2702-Fert. dt. the 17th Sept., 1974, issued in the Department of Agricultural and Community Development, Government of West Bengal, and published in the Calcutta Gazette, Part-I, Sep. 17, 1974. A perusal of the above notification shows that under Entry No. 21 a Sub-Inspector of Police and officers above the rank of Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch were designated as Inspector of Fertilizer within their respective areas of work. The learned Advocate contends that the Inspector, D.E.B, who carried the inspection of the fertilizer shop in question was only an Inspector attached to D.E.B, that is to say, District Enforcement Branch, but under Entry No. 21 all the officers above the rank of the Inspector attached to the Enforecement Branch were designated as Inspector of Fertilizers. Therefore, not being the Inspector of Fertilisers it is contended that the Sub-Inspector had no authority to inspect the said shop. So the inspection and seizure was carried and made by a person unauthorised under the law. It is contended that the entire inspection seizure was illegal and void ab initio and the subsequent proceedings including cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate became void and illegal.”

5. Paragraph 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 provides that “the State Government and/or the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint such number of persons as it/they think necessary to be Inspectors of Fertilizers for the purpose of the Order and may in any such notification define the local area within which each such Inspector shall exercise his jurisdiction.” The relevant notification which was considered by the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench in the aforesaid case is the Notification dt. 17th Sept., 1974. That Notification provides that the Sub-Inspector of Police and all officers above the rank of Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch would be entitled to act as the Inspector under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957. The said Notification was amended on 17th Sept., 1977. The amendment is to the effect that the Sub-Inspector of Police and all Officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch would be the Inspector for the purpose of the said order.

6. What Mr. Sengupta wants to contend is that the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Enforcement Branch has no jurisdiction to act as the Inspector under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957. According to him, only the officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector and above attached to the Enforcement Branch can act as Inspector under the said order, not a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch. He submits that this construction has been accepted by the Division Bench which we should follow.

7. This contention has substance.

8. Before the Single Bench, Inspector attached to District Enforcement Branch conducted the search under the said Order. Since he was not attached to the Enforcement Branch, he had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding as he was not an Inspector of Fertilizers within the meaning of the said Order. Before the Division Bench, a Sub-Inspector attached to District Enforcement Branch and not to the Enforcement Branch conducted the search. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated by him were held to be bad. In the case before us also Sub-Inspector attached to District Enforcement Branch conducted the search and seizure and initiated the impugned proceedings.

9. A Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Enforcement Branch was competent to initiate proceedings under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 at the material time. By the Notification issued by the Government of West Bengal on 17th Sept., 1974 it has been provided as follows:

“The Governor is pleaded hereby to appoint the persons specified in column 1 of the table below as Inspector of Fertilizers for the purpose of the said Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 and to define the areas specified in the corresponding entries in Column 2 of the said table as the areas within which such Inspector shall exercise their respective jurisdiction:—

Person Area for which appointment is made. 21. The Sub-Inspector of Police and all officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached to Enforcement Branch. Within their respective area of work.

10. The aforesaid Notification was amended by corrigendum issued on 14th Oct., 1977 to the following effect:

“In serial No. (21) of the table annexed to this Department Notification No. 2702-Fert. dt. 17th Sept., 1974 for the Sub-Inspector of Police and all Officers above the rank of Inspector attached to Enforcement Branch read The Sub-Inspectors of Police and all officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached to Enforcement Branch.”

11. On 17th Feb., 1983, further notification was made by the Government amending the earlier notification dt. 17th Sept., 1974 including the District Enforcement Branch. It provides that the table annexed to the notification dt. 17th Sept., 1974 as amended under the heading ‘person’ in Column 1 for the entries against serial No. 21 the following entries shall be substituted: “All Officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Enforcement Branch including District Enforcement Branch.”

12. On 1st Feb., 1984 a fresh notification has been issued which also provides that “Sub-Inspectors of Police and all Officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Enforcement Branch including D.E.B and District Enforcement Branch” are appointed to act as Inspectors of Fertilisers under Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 within their respective areas of work.

13. It will be evident from the aforesaid Notifications issued on 17th Feb., 1983 and 1st Feb., 1984 that the Sub-Inspectors of Police and all Officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector who are also attached to District Enforcement Branch have been appointed to act as Inspectors of Fertilisers under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957. A Sub-Inspector of Police if attached to the Enforcement Branch could have only acted as Inspector under the said order until the amendment was affected on 17th Feb., 1983 when all officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached, also to District Enforcement Branch have been empowered to act as Inspector of Fertilizers under the said Control Order.

14. In our view, attachment to the District Enforcement Branch is the decisive factor. Any Sub-Inspector of Police or any officer above the rank of Sub-Inspector who at the material time was (not?) attached to the District Enforcement Branch, could not act as the Inspector of Fertilizers.

15. Enforcement Branch, West Bengal, is a wing of West Bengal Police. In the post-war years, sharp rise in price of essential commodities, malpractices of the unscrupulous traders and profiteers compelled the then Bengal Government to consider the creation of an agency for the enforcement of the Provincial Government's Food Plan for 1944 and also the Central Government's Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, 1943. By Memo No. 770 P1 dt. Calcutta, the 11th March, 1944 issued by the Home Department it was directed that the agency for collecting information and detecting offences against all laws and orders relating to food and other controlled commodities and also for investigating charges of corruption of dishonesty in supplies organisation should be the responsibility of the Police, i.e the Inspector General of Police outside Calcutta and the Commissioner of Police in Calcutta.

16. Officers of both Enforcement Branch, West Bengal, and District Enforcement Branch are under the administrative control of Director General and Inspector General of Police, West Bengal.

17. Enforcement Branch, Calcutta is a separate wing and under the exclusive and direct control of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (vide S. 9 of the Calcutta Police Act and S. 3 of the Calcutta Suburban Police Act, 1866). This Bench operates within the areas of the Town of Calcutta and its suburbs where the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 and the Calcutta Suburban Police Act, 1866 are in force.

18. There cannot be any dispute that under the organisational set up, Enforcement Branch, Calcutta and District Enforcement Branch are different establishments. One who is attached to Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, cannot at the same time be attached to the District Enforcement Branch. In the case before us the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch conducted the search, initiated the proceeding and submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner on 17th Oct., 1982 for violation of the provisions of Para 21 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, when he was not authorised to act as the Inspector of Fertilizers and accordingly the proceeding must be held to be without jurisdiction. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The proceedings are quashed.

J.N Hore, J.:— I agree.

19. Petition allowed.

Santa Kumar Das And Another v. The State .

Judicial Opinion Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Santa Kumar Das And Another v. The State .

Comments