RIZWAN AHMED JAVED SHAIKH AND ORS.versusJAMMAL PATEL AND ORS.

A                RIZWAN AHMED JAVED SHAIKH AND ORS.
                                           v.
                           JAMMAL PATEL AND ORS.

                                   MAY12,2001

B                [R.C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.]


          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 197(2) and (3)-Cognizance
    with prior sanction-Applicabilizr of the provision on police officers under
C   Boinbay Police Act, 1951-By issue a.fa notification-Held, the alleged
    offence sh~u/d be in discharge of o.fficial duty and not be related to
    'maintenancel°f public order'.

          Penal Code, 1860/Bombay Police Act, 1951-Sections 220 and 342
    Sections 147(C) and (d)-Prosecution of police officers-Offence alleged
D   committed. in their official capacity-Held, the police officers entitled to
    benefit of protection under Section 197(2) Cr.P.C.

          Words and Phrases

          'Maintenance of public order '~Meaning of-Jn the context of Section
E   173(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

          Appellants filed complaint against the respondent-police officers,
                                                                    \
    complaining that respondent No. 1, a Sub-Inspector, kept the appellants in
    police lock-up and did not produce them before the Magistrate within 24 hours
F   of their arrest, and that lhey were mercilessly beaten while under detention.

           In magisterial inq':'iry, held under section 202 Criminal Procedure
    Code, 1973, the Magistrate took cognizance under sections('I 220
                                                                  ••
                                                                     and 342 IPC
    and Sections 147 and 148 of Bombay Police Act, 1951. One of the
    complainants, when examined, merely stated that he was assaulted by one of
G   the police officers. The respondents/accused raised objection as to the
    maintainability of the complaint under section 197(2), Cr.P.C. relying on a
    notification whereby sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary for
    all police officers defined in Bombay Police Act. Magistrate discharged the
    respondent~ on t.he ground that the complaint could not have been filed without
H   the requisite sanction.
                                         766
                    RIZWAN AHMED .JAVED SllAIKll v . .JAMMAL PATEL                 767

           The Appellants' Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. and writ petition filed     A
      before High Court were dismissed.

             In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the benefit of
      notification was not available to respondents, since in order to claim protection
      under notification, it is necessary that the accused must be police officers as
      defined in Bombay Police Act and must be charged with the 'maintenance of           B
      the public order' at the relevant time and not for 'maintenance of law and
      order', and that in the present case, si~e the police officers had arrested the
      appellants, kept them in confinement and assaulted them, they were acts
      referable at the most to the lluty of the police officers related to the
      'maintenance of law and order', but not the 'maintenance of public order'.
                                                                                          c
            Dismissing the appeal, the Court

            HELD: 1.1. The real testto be applied to attract the applicability of
      Section 197(3) Cr.P.C. is whether the act which is done by a public officer
      and is alleged to constitute an offence was done by the public officer whilst
      acting in his official capacity though what he did was neither his duty nor his D
      right to do as such public officer. The act complained of may be in exercise of
      the duty or in the absence of such duty or in dereliction of the duty~if.the act
      complained of is done while acting as a public officer and in the course of the
)--   same transaction in which the official duty was performed or purports to be
      performed the public officer would be protected. 1775-D-El                       E
            1.2. In the instant case, the notification issued under Section 197(3)
      Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, applies to members of Bombay Police force.
      Once it is held that the members of the Bombay Police force are the persons
      to whom the notification issued under Section 197(3) Cr.P.C. applies.11nd if
      the act which is alleged to be an offence was done in discharg~ or purported        F
      discharge of the duty of the accused persons, they will be entitled to the
      protection extended by sub-section (2) of Section 197, Cr.P.C. Such official
      duty need not necessarily be one related to the maintenance of public order.
                                                                 1774-A-B; 772-DI
                                                                          \

           S.B. Saha and Ors. v. K.S. Kochar, AIR (1979) SC 1841; Jethmal v. G
      Khusal Singh, (1984) RLW 545 and K.K.S. Mohammed v. Sasi and 4 Ors.,
      (1985) Kerala Law Journal 403, referred to.

            Bhikhaji Vaghaji v. l.K. Baral, (1981) GLR 956, approved.

            1.3. The act constituting an offence alleged to have been committed by        H
     768                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [200 I] 3 S.C. R.

A the accused-r<;,spondents was certainly done by them in their official capacity
     though at a given point of time it had ceased to be legal inspite of being legal
     to begin with. The custody of the appellants with the respondents, which was
     legal to begin with become illegal on account of non-production of the
     complainants before the Magistrate by the police officers officially detaining
B    the appellants at a place, meant for detaining the persons suspected of having
     committed an offence under investigation. 1776-B-CI

           2. The phrase 'maintenance of 1?ublic order' in the present context need
     not be assigned a narrow meaning as is assigned to in preventive detention
     matters. The police officers do discharge duties .-'elating to maintenance of
C    public order in its wider sense. 1773-G-Hl

           Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M. Monghyr, AIR (1971) SC 2480, referred to.

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 823
    of 1994.

D          From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.89 of the Bombay High Court
    in Crl. W.P. No. 68of1987.

         M.S. Nargolkar, D.M. Nargolkar and Shakil Ahmed Sye~ for the
    Appellants.

E          S.S. Shinde for S. V. Deshpande for the Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           R.C. LAHOTI, J. One Faijuddin Jainuddin lodged a complaint against
     Rizwan Ahmed, Ramchandra Kasbe and Afzalkhan, the three appellants before
F    us, complaining that the appellants and some other unknown persons had
     gathered dangerous weapons and abducted the complainant, Faijuddin
     Jainuddin and assaulted him. The police registered offences punishable under
     Sections 142, 144, 147, 148, 365, 368, 324/149 IPC against the appellants and
    commenced investigation. On 28th March, 1986 at about 8.30 p.m. the
G   respondent no. I who was a sub-inspector attached to Chembur police station,
    along with other policemen, came to the residence of the appellants and
    forced the three appellants to accompany them to Chembur police station
    where they were put up in the lock-up. At about 2 a.m. on 29.3.1986 they were
    put up in a police van and brought to Bhandup police station and placed in
    the lock_-up. On 30.3.1986 the appellants were produced before the Holiday
H   Magistrate at Bhoiwada (Dadar) who ordered them to be produced before the
       RIZWAN AHMED JAVED SllAIKH i·. JAMMAL PATEL ILAHOTI. J.J            769

regular court on 31.3. 1986. Later on they were released on bail. On 16th July,   A
1986 the appellants filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th
Court. Mulund, Bombay impleading two sub-inspectors, two senior police
inspectors and a police inspector attached with Chembur and Bhandup police
stations complaining of offences under sections 220, 342 of IPC and 147 (c)
(d) and 148 of Bombay Police Act, 1951. The complaint also alleged the            B
appellants having been "mercilessly beaten" while they were wrongfully
confined at Chembur police station. The learned Magistrate in the inquiry
held under section 202 Cr.P.C. recorded the statement of complainant and one
witness, took cognizance under Sections 220 and 342 IPC and Sections 147
and 148 of Bombay Police Act and directed the accused to be summoned.

      The accused-respondents appeared before the learned Magistrate and
                                                                                  c
raised an objection to the maintainability of the complaint under Section 197
(2) of Cr.P.C. relying on a notification which will be reproduced shortly
hereinafter. The learned Magisfrate formed an opinion that the complaint
could not have been filed without the requisite sanction and therefore directed
the accused-respondents to be discharged. The appellants preferred a petition D
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution before the
High Court of Bombay which was dismissed. The appellants have filed this
appeal by special leave.

      The relevant notification dated 2.6.1979 reads as under:-
                                                              NOTIFICA TION       E
                           Home Department Mantralaya, Bombay - 400 032

No. CR.P.0./78/9845/POL-3. In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section
(3) of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (II of 1974), the
Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that the provisions of sub-section       F
(2) of that Section shall apply to the following categories of the members of
the. force in the State charged with the maintenance of public order wherever
they may be serving, namely:-

        (I) All police officers as defined in the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Born.
        XXII of 1951 ), other than the Special or Additional Police Officers G
        appointed under section 21 or 22 of that Act;

        (2) Ali Reserve Police Officers as defined in Bombay State Reserve
        Police Force Act, 1951 (Born. XXXVIH of 1951).

      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in order     H
     770                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2001] 3 S.C.R.

 A to claim protection under the notification it is necessary that the accused
     must be a police officer as defined in the Bombay Police f\ct, 1951 and must
     be charged with the maintenance of public order at the relevant time. In other
     words, if a poli<;:e officer is discharging a duty referable to law and order only
     as distinguished from 'the maintenance of public order' he cannot claim
 B   protection under the notification. In the case at hand the police officers had
     arrested the appellants, kept them in confinement and assaulted them which
     are acts referable at the most to the duty of a police officer related to
     'maintenance of law and order' but not 'the maintenan.ce of public order' and
     therefore the benefit of the notification is not available to the respondents.
     The learned counsel submitted that the orders of the learned Magistrate as
 C   also of the High Court deserve to be set aside and the learned Magistrate
     directed to proceed ahead with hearing of the complaint made against the
     accused persons.

           Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. which are only
     relevant for our purpose read as under :-
 D
           197. Prosecution of Judges and public servant.

                   (1) xxx                        xxx                      xxx

                (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have
             been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union
'E           while acting or purporting to act in the. discharge of his official duty,
             except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

                 (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the
             provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of
             the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public
 F           order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and
             thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the
             expression "Central Government" occurring therein the expression
             "State Government" was submitted.

             (3A) xxx                       xxx                     xxx
 G
             (3B) xxx                       xxx                     xxx

             (4)    xxx                     xxx                      xxx

           The Division Bench of\ the Bombay High Court has placed reliance on
 H a Division Bench decision of Gujarat High Court in Bhikhaji Vaghaji v. l.K.
       RIZWAN AHMED .JAVED SHAIKH v. JAMMAL PATEL [LAHqTt. J.J                    771
                                                                        I

Barot, ( 1981) 22 G LR 956. The learned counsel for the appellants have on the          A
other hand placed reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in Jethmal
v. Khusal Singh (1984) RLW 545 and a decision of Calcutta High Court in K.K.
S. Muhammed v. Sasi and 4 Ors., (1985) Kerala Law Journal 403, both Single
Bench decisions. We may briefly summarise the interpretation placed by the
three High Courts on similar notifications referable to Section 197 (3) of Cr.P.C.      B
       In Jethmal's case (supra) the State Government's notification dated
31. 7.1974 provided that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 197 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 shall apply to police officials, of all ranks,
charged with the maintenance of public order, wherever they may be working.
The accused police officer while arresting the complainant under Section 41 (2) C
of Cr.P.C. refused to release the complainant on bail though his sureties were
present and the bail was offered. The learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High
Court formed an opinion that the refusal of bail to the complainant by the
accused cannot be said to be in connection with the maintenance of public
order and therefore protection under the State notification was not available
to him. In the case of K.K.S. Muhammed(supra)the notification dated 6.12.1977 D
issued by the Government of Kerala under Section 197 (3) of Cr.P.C. provided
that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 197 shall apply to all members
of the Kerala State Police Force charged with maintenance of public order. The
learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court drew distinction between the
members ofKerala Police Force charged with maintenance of public order and E
those charged with maintenance of law and order and held that inasmuch as
the accused were not members belonging to any class or category of forces
charged with maintenance of public order, protection under the notification
could not be extended to the accused persons even if they were acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties.
                                                                                        F
      In the case of Bhikhaji Vaghaji (supra) the notification dated 15.5.1974
issued by the State Government under Section 197 (3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure provided "that the provisions of sub-section (2) of the said section
shall apply to the police officers as defined by clause ( 11) of section 2 of the
Bombay Police Act, 1951 .......................... charged with the maintenance of public G
order". The Division Bench held that the phrase "charged with the maintenance
of public order" occurring in the notification dated 15.5.1974 and also occurring
in sub- section (3) of Section 197 is obviously an adjectival phrase and ·it
cannot be interpreted to mean a phrase suggesting the time when such
members of the police force are to avail themselves of the exemption of
protection contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 197 of the Code. The H
     772                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [200 I] 3 S.C.R.

A     protection was extended to a member of the police force charged with the
    . maintenance of public order though the act in question which was alleged to
      be an offence committed by the accused persons was not referable to his duty         x
      to maintain public order.

           We find oursel\;'.es in agreement with the view taken by the Division
B   Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhikhaji Vaghaji and therefore,
    also with the view taken by Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the
    order under appeal. The submission made by the learned counsel for the
    appellants confuses the issue as to applicability of notification with the span
    of protective umbrella or the purview or compass of such sub-section (2) of
C   Section 197 of the Code. The person on whom the protection i~ sought to
    be conferred by the State Government notification is to be determined by
    reading the notification and once it is found that the State Government
    notification applies to the member of the force which the accused is, the
    scope, purview or compass of the protection has to be deterilliheu by reading
    sub-section (2) of Section 197 of the Code, i.e., by asking a question whether
D   the act alleged to be an offence was done or purports to have been done in
    the discharge of the official duty of the accused. Such official duty need not
    necessarily be one related to the maintenance of public order.

          The accused-respondents are undisputedly members of Bombay Police
E   Force governed by the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Preamble to the Act
    provides that it was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the
    regulation of the police forces and the exercise of powers and performance
    of functions by the State Government and by the members of the said force
    for the maintenance of public order. It is an empty truism to state that the
    members of the police force are persons charged with the maintenance of
F   public order. In Bhikhaji Vaghaji 's case, the Division Bench of Gujarat High
    Court has observed (vide para 9) :-

            " .................... The Preamble of the Bombay Police Act itself sets out
            that the Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating
            to the Regulation of the Police Force and the exercise of powers and
G           performance of the functions by the State Government and by the
            members of the said force for the maintenance of public order
            (emphasis supplied by us). It is, therefore, too much to say that the
            members of the Police force are not persons charged with ~
            maintenance of public order. Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act also
H           mentions that the Police force shall have such powers, functions and
          RIZWAN AHMED JAVED SHAIKH v. JAMMAL PATEL [LAHOTI. J.)             773

          duties as the State Government may by general or special order A
          determine. The above quoted Government notification, apart from
          other general trend, can be said to be the Government's direction or
          declaration that members of the Police Force, styled as "Police officers"
          as defined by section 2(1) of the Bombay Police Act, are persons
          "charged with the maintenance of public order". It is a truism to state B
          that it is the duty of every member of the Police force to see that
          public order is maintained. This is the general duty of every member
          of the Police force, styled as "Police officer" in the Bombay Police
          Act."
      I
  I

We find ourselves in agreement with the abovesaid observations.
                                                                                   c
     We may with advantage quote the following passage from Constitution
Bench decision in Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M Monghyr, AIR (1971) SC 2480:

               "In dealing with the phrase 'maintenance of public order' in the
          context of preventive detention, we confined the expression in the D
          relevant Act to what was included in the second circle and left out
          that which was in the larger circle. But that consideration need not
          always apply because small local disturbances of the even tempo of
          life, may in a sense be said to affect 'public order' in a different sense,
          namely, in the sense of a state of law abidingness vis-a-vis the safety
          of others. In our judgment the expression 'in the interest, of public E
          order' in the Constitution is capable of taking within itsel,f not only
          those acts which disturb the security of the State or are within order
          publique as described but also certain acts which disttlrb public
          tranquillity or are breaches of the peace. It is not necessary to give
          to the expression a narrow meaning because, as has been observed,
          the expression 'in the interest of public order' is very wide. Whatever F
          may be said of maintenance of public order in the context 'Of special
          laws entailing detention of persons without a trial on, the pure
          subjective determination of the Executive cannot be said in other
          circumstances. In the former case this Court confined the meaning to
          graver episodes not involving cases of law and order which are not G
          disturbances of public tranquillity but of ordre publique.

      The phrase "maintenance of public order" in the context before us need .
not be assigned a narrow meaning as is assigned to in preventive detention
matters. The police officers do discharge duties relating to maintenance of
public order in its wider sense.                                               H




                                                '
    774                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A         The notification therefore applies to members of Bombay police force.
    Once it is held that the members of t_he Bombay police force are the persons
    to whom the notification issued under Section 197 (3) of the Code applies and
    ifthe act which is alleged to be an offence was done in discharge or purported
    discharge of the duty of the accused persons they will be entitled to the .
B   protection extended by sub-section (2) of Section I 97 of the Code.

           The question of applicability of Section 197 (2) of the Code is not free
    of difficulty. In S.B. Saha and Ors. v. K.S. Kochar, AIR (1979) SC I 841 this
    Court on a review of the case law available on the point held as under :-

           "The words "any offence alleged to have been committed by him
c          while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty"
           employed in Section 197( 1) of the Code, are capable of a narrow as
           well as a wide interpretation. If these words are construed too narrowly,
           the Section will be rendered altogether sterile, for, "it is no part of an
           official duty to commit an offence, and never can be". In the wider
D          sense, these words will take under their umbrella every act constituting
           an offence, committed in the course of the same transaction in which
           the official duty is performed or purports to be performed. The right
           approach to the import of these words lies between two extremes.
           While on the one hand, it is not /every offence committed by a public
           servant whil.e engaged in the performance of his official duty, which
E          is entitled to the protection of Section 197 ( 1), an act constituting an
           offence, directly and reasonably connected with his official duty will
           require sanction for prosecution under the said provision. As pointed
           out by Ramaswami, K. in Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
           (1966) SC 220 at p 222. "it is the quality of the act that is important
           and if it falls within the scope and range of his official duties, the
F
           protection contemplated by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure
           Code will be attracted."

               In sum, the sine qua non for the applicability of this section is that
           the offence charged be it one of commission or omission, must be one
G          which has been committed by the public servant either in his official
           capacity or under colour of the office held by him.

                While the question whether an offence was committed in the
           course official duty or under .colour of office, cannot be answered
           hypothetically, and depends on the facts of each case, one broad test
H          for this purpose first deduced by Varadachariar J. of the Federal Court




                                                                                        ,   '
=I


            RIZWAN AllMED JAVED SHAll\.ll 1·. JAMMAi. PATEL ILAHOTI. .1 I         775
             in Hori Ram v. Emperor, ( 1939) FCR 159 is generally applied with A
             advantage. After referring with approval to those observations of
             Yaradachariar J., Lord Simonds in H.B. Gill v. The King, AIR (1948)
             PC 128 tersely reiterated that the "test may well be whether the public
             servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim, that what he does, he
             does in virtue of his office."
                                                                                         B
                Speaking for the Constitution Bench of th is Cou11, Chandrasekhar
             Aiyer J., restated the same principle, thus :

                 " ........ in the matter of grant of sanction under Section 197, the
             offence alleged to have been committed by the accused must have
             something to do or must be related in some manner, with the discharge       C
             of official duty ......... there must be a reasonable connection between
             the act and the discharge of official duty, the act must bear such
             relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable claim,
             but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of
             the performance of his duty".                                          D
           The real test to be applied to attract the applicability of Section 197 (3)
     is whether the act which is done by a public officer and is alleged to constitute
     an offence was done by the public officer whilst acting in his official capacity
     though what he did was neither his duty nor his right to do as such public
     officer. The act complained of may be in exercise of the duty or in the absence     E
     of such duty or in dereliction of the duty, if the act complained of is done
     while acting as a public officer and in the course of the _same transaction in
     which the official duty was performed or purports to be performed, the public
     officer would be protected.

           In the case at hand cognizance against the accused persons has not F
     been taken under Section 323 of the IPC. It appears that the complaint stated
     the complainants to have been "beaten mercilessly" by one of the accused
     persons whilst in custody but when one of the complainants was examined
     by the learned Magistrate he stated only this much that one of the police
     officers had assaulted him. The statement was too vague to be acted upon G
     and hence cognizance for causing hurt to any of the complainants has not
     been taken by the learned Magistrate. None of the complainants has made
     any grievance about it. The cognizance taken is only under Section 220
     (commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows
     that he is acting contrary to law) and Section 342 (wrongful confinement) of



,    Indian Penal Code. Cognizance has also been taken for offences under Section H
    77.6                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A    147 (Vexatious injury, search, arrest etc. by police officer) and Section 148
    (Vexatious delay in forwarding a person arrested) of the Bombay Police Act,
     1951. Cognizable and non-bailable offences were registered against the
    appellants. They were liable to be arrested and detained. The gravamen of the
    charge is the failure on the part of the accused persons to produce them
    before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. The complainants were in the
B   custody of the police officers and at the police station. It cannot be denied
    that the custody which was legal to begin with became illegal on account of
    non-production of the complainants before the Magistrate by the police
    officers officially detaining the appellants at a place meant for detaining the
    persons suspected of having committed an offence under investigation. The
C   act constituting an offence alleged to have been committed by the accused-
    respondents was certainly done by them in their official capacity though at
    a given point of time it had ceased to be legal in spite of being legal to begin
    with. On the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in our opinion
    the learned Magistrate and the High Court have not erred in holding the
    accused-respondents entitled to the benefit ()f protection under Section 197 .
D   (2) of the Cr.P.C. We have felt it unnecessary to deal with the allegation made
    in the complaint relating to beating of the appellants whilst in police custody
    because no cognizance has been taken for an offence in that regard a_nd no
    cognizance can now be taken because of the bar of limitation enacted by
    Section 468 ofCr.P.C.
E          For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed.
                                                                                        ,_
    K.K.T.                                                      Appeal dismissed.




                                                                                       -~
                                                                                       <