STATE (UNION OF INDIA)versusRAM SARAN

A                          STA TE (UNION OF INDIA)
                                          v.
                                   RAM SARAN

                             ·.DECEMBER 4, 2003
                                                                                         y'
B            [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]

         Service Law:

         Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.: Ss. IO(m), 16(2)/Central
C   Reserve Police Force Rules, 1959; Rules 3 (a), (b), (e) and (j)!Code of
    Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 4, 5, 11, 12 and 13:

        Assistant Commandant exercising power ofJudicial Magistrate con-
  victed and sentenced an errant employee/constable on ground ofunauthor-
  ised absence-Jurisdiction to record conviction~hallenge to-Sessions
D Court holding that Assistant Commandant had no jurisdiction-Revision
  petition dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, Held: Conferment of
  such power could not be challenged in a proceeding/revision under the
  Cr.P.C.-Since members of CRPF are part of the armed forces, new/
  specified offences have been created to enforce discipline amongst the
E members-Hence, Assistant Commandant had jurisdiction to try such
  offences as defined under the Act-Entry 2, List I-Seventh S~hedule to
  the Constitution of India.

          Statute-Vires in a particular provision-Jurisdiction-Held: Exclu-
    sively vested with !he Courts exercising power of Judicial Review under                   It...
F   Article 321226-It is impermissible for the Courts to decide on vires of the               '·
    provision in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction-Constitution
    of India; Articles 321226.

         Words and Phrases:
G         'more heinous offences ', 'less heinous offences' and 'specially created
    offences '-Meaning of in the context of Ss, 9 and JO of the CRPF Act.
                                                                                     •
        Respondent-employee, a Constable, while serving in the ITBP
    remained absent beyond sanctioned period of leave. Assistant
H   Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force in exercise of powers of
                                         476
                                                                                                   ..
                                                                                                   !-
                                            ·~




            STATE (UNION OF INDIA) v. RAM SARAN                     477
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class conferred on him-as per provisions of A
the Central Reserve Police Force Act, held trial and found respondent
guilty and sentenced him to. .Undergo .imprisonment for 3 months.
Respondent-accused challenged the order in the Sessions Court which
was allowed by the Sesslons'Court al1d affirmed by the High Court.
Hence the present appeal by the State (Union of fndia).               B
     It was contended for the appellant-Union of India that since
CRPF Act is a special lawibeing operated in specified field, provisions
of the Act could be applied by the authorities for holding trial for the
specified offences to convict and sentence an errant employee.
                                                                           c
     On behalf of the Respondent-employee, it was submitted that the
Assistant Commandant had no jurisdiction to function as Judicial
Magistrate; and that the Central Government cotdd not confer any
power on the authorities to act as Judicial Magistrate.

     Allowing the appeal, the Court                                        D

     HELD : 1.1. The Courts below have overlooked certain essential
and vital aspects necessary to appreciate the relevant issues arising in
their proper perspective. Entry 93 of-List I, VII Schedule to the
Constitution of India enables Parliament to provide for offences E
against laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in list I.
Sections 9 and 10 of the Act create by enumerating what are stated
to be 'more heinous offences' and 'less heinous offences' respectively
and· many of such specially created offences for the purposes of this
Act cannot constitute or amount to be offences under the ordinary p
criminal law of the land. To that extent they are new class of offences
created with punishments therefor, which are unknown. to ordinary
criminal law in force. [481-F-G-H; 482-A]

      1.2. The fallacy in the reasoning of the Courts below lies in their
superficial and cursory nature of consideration undertaken therein, G
without reference to the competence and powers of Parliament to
specifically and specially provide for trial and punishment of offences
separately created under a special enactment of Parliament, in a manner
distinct and separate from the method of trying other ordinary criminal
offences under the general criminal iaw of the country. (482-E-F)         H
    478                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A         1.3. Unauthorised absence of an employee staying beyond the
    sanctioned period of leave is not an offence in the normal course under
    the ordinary criminal law of the land. But, disciplined forces with the
    intention of enforcing discipline have made them punishable consider-
    ing them as offences and have prescribed various sentences. For such
B   particular purposes the designated officials have been conferred with
    magisterial powers. The Assistant Commandant who passed the order
    undisputedly acted as a Judicial Magistrate in view of the powers
    conferred on him under the Act. The conferment of such power has
    not been distinctly questioned and could not have been questioned in
C   a proceeding, appeal or a revision under the Code. As long as the
    specific provision in Act exists enabling the competent Authority to
    pass the order under challenge, the same will have full force and
    efficacy. [483-A-B-C-D]

          1.4. It is well-settled that creature of any statute cannot consider
D   the vires of a particular provision in that statute or any other statute
    as well. Exclusive power for such purposes are vested under the
    Constitution of India only on Courts exercising powers of judicial
    review under Articles 32/226 oUhe Constitution alone. While exercis-
    ing appellate or revisional jurisdiction under the Code, it is impermis-
E   sible for any Court to decide on the vires of the provision. That is
    precisely what the Sessions Court and the High Court have done in the
    present ~ase. The vires of a provision can only be questioned in a writ
    proceeding before the constitutional Court. [483-D-E]

           1.5. Entry 2 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution makes
F the position clear that members of CRPF are part of the armed forces
    of the Union Government. The punishments to be imposed under the
    Act for various offences are defined by Sections 9 and 10, which have
    been created by statute. They are deemed offences and in the scheme of
    enforcing discipline they have been treated as infractions unbecoming
G   of members belonging to disciplined forces like the CRPF. That being
    the position, the Sessions Court and the High Court were not justified in
    holding that the Assistant Commandant had no jurisdiction to deal with
    the respondent in the concerned trial. [483-F-G-H)

H         · 1.6. Provisions of the Cr.PC. would be applicable to-the investi-
     STATE (UNION OF INDIA) v. RAM SARAN [PASAYAT, J.] 479
gations, inquiries into and trials of cases by criminal Courts of various A
descriptions, being the parent statute, in the absence of any contrary
provision in any special statute or special provision excluding jurisdic-
tion or applicability of the Cr.i>.C. The Assistant Commandant was
clothed with necessary jurisdiction for trial of the matter 'as per
specified provision of law in the Act. 1485-D; 486-D)                     B
     Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan & Anr., 11994) 3
SCC 440; Nilratan Sircar v. Lakshmi Narayan Ram Niwas, AIR (1965)
SC 1 and Maru Ram Etc. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors., (1981] I SCC
107, relied on.

     2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the fine of two
                                                                         c
months pay which respondent was drawing at the time when the
proceedings were initiated would meet the ends of justice. However,
deterrent punishment must be resorted to only when such absence is
resorted to avoid and evade undertaking a testing or trying venture D
or deployment - essential at any given point of time, and not as a
routine. [486-F-G]

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
410 of 1997.
                                                                        E
     From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.94 of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in Cr!. A. No. 172 of 1989.

      P.P. Malhotra, Y.P. Mahajan, Ms. Sushma Suri and P. Parmeswaran
for the Appellant.
                                                                         F
    S.C. ·Maheshwari, M.P.S. Tomar, Wajahat Ansari and Ms. Sandhya
Goswami for the Respondent

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Questioning conviction made by the Assist- G
ant Commandant of Central Reserve Police Force (in short the 'CRPF')
made under Section lO(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949
(in short the 'Act') and consequential sentences imposed, the respondent
filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmaur. The Sessions
Judge held that the Assistant Commandant had no jurisdiction to record H
    4.80               SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A conviction and impose sentence. The said j u<lgment was questioned before
    the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by a ·revision petition filed by the
    Union of India. The revision was also dismissed. Both the Sessions Judge
    and the High Court held that the Assistant Commandant, III Battalion,
    ITBP, Nahan could not hav·e exercised powers of Judicial Magistrate 1st
B   Class and, therefore, the trial and conviction of the accused-respondent
    were illegal. The High Court held that combined reading of Sections 11,
    12 and 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code')
    clearly rule out the appointment of any person exercising powers of
    Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in the absence of conferment of powers by
C   the High Court. This, according to the Sessions Judge and the High Court
    stemmed from the fact that there was separation of judiciary from the
    Executive in 1973 and thereafter the powers of appointment and confer-
    ment for functioning as Judicial Magistrate either of First Class or Second
    Class could only be done by the High Court and the Central Government
    or the State Government had no power to invest any person with powers
D   of Judicial Magistrate 6f any class. Reference was· also made to Section
    5 of the Code and observed that the expression "iri the absence of a specific
    provision to the contrary" used therein did not render Section 16(2) of the
    Act redundant.

E         At this juncture, it would be necessary to take note of the factual
    position.

             The respondent while functioning as a Constable (Sweeper) in the
    III Battalion, ITBP, Nahan did not join ·duty after expiry of the leave
    granted to him. Though he was granted leave for the period from· 9.4.1987
F   to 24.5 .1987, he did not join after expiry of the period. There was no
    intimation to the competent authority or request for extension of leave. The
    respondent accepted that he had stayed beyond the period of leave, but
    indicated several reasons as to why the same was nece.ssitated. Complaint
    was lodged by the concerned authorities and the Assistant Commandant
G   exercising powers of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in terms of Section 10
    (m) of the Act, issued notice in terms of Section 251 of the Code and after
    trial found him guilty and sentenced himto undergo imprisonment forthree
    months. The said order as noted above was questioned before the Sessions
    Judge by the respondent and in view of the relief granted to him by the
H   Sessions Judge, the matter was carried in revision by the Union of India.
     STATE (UNION OF INDIA) v. RAM SARAN [PASAYAT, J.] 481
But the same having been rejected, this appeal has been filed.             A
        In support of the appeal, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the Sessions Judge and the High Comt clearly Jost sight of
Section 16(2) of the Act and Rule 36 (a), (b), (e) and (f) of the Central
Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 {in short the 'Rules') as well as Sections B
4 and 5 of the Code. Section 16(2) of the Act clearly indicates that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the provisions of the Act
could be applied. Section 4(2) of the Code pertnits action under ·any law
other than the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for. short the 'IPC'). Section 5
refers to absence of a specific provision to the contrary i.n any special or C
local law. The Act was a special law which operated in a specified field.
These aspects were not considered in their proper perspective by the
Sessions Judge and the High Court.

       Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
Sessions Judge and the High Court were justified in interfering with the D
order passed by the Assistant Commandant as he had no jurisdiction to.
function and his appointment by a Notification issued by the Central
Government could not have conferred on him any power to act as a Judicial
Magistrate when the sole repository of the power to so notify is the High
Court after the Code was enacted in 1973. The position may have been E
different under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898 (in short the 'Old
Code'), but the present position is entirely different and the Ministry of
Home Affairs' Notification dated 25. l. i 978 was really of no consequence.

        The Courts below have overlooked certain essential and vital
aspects necessary to appreciate the relevant issues arising in their proper F
perspective. Under .Section 3(1) of the Act, CRPF is constituted to be an
'armed force' maintained by the Central Government, and consequently it
would be 'any other armed forces of the union' as envisaged in Entry 2
of List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India. Entry 93 of List
I enables Parliament also to provide for offences against faws with respect G
to any of the matters enumerated in List I. Sections 9 and 10 create by
enumerating what are stated to be 'more heinous offences' and 'less.
heinous offences? respectively and many of such specially created offences
for the purposes of this Act cannot constitute or amount to be offences
under the ordinary criminal law of the land. ·To that extent they are new H
    482                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A class of offences created with punishments therefor, which are unknown
    to prdinary criminal law in force. Section 16 provides for empowering
    Co~petent Authorities in the hierarchy of the force. itself with powers or
    duties conferred or imposed on a police officer of any class or grade by
    any law for the time being in force and by further enacting a provision with
B .·a specific "non obstante" clause stipulates that notwithstanding anything
    contained in the Code, the Central Government may invest the Comman-
    dant or Assistant Commandant with the powers of a Magistrate of any class
    for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence committed by a
    member of the force and punishable "under this Act" or any offence
    committed by a member of the force against the person or property of
C another member. Consequently, what is purported to be done by these
    provisions are merely to refer to the nature and extent of powers possessed
    by such authorities under the other laws being made available to the
    authorities designated under this Act, for discharging their duties under this
    Act, without exhaustively enumerating the details of all such powers or
D without re-enacting all such provisions in detail as part and parcel of this
    law - the Act, and not to constitute them to be or empower them as
    Magistrates as such for all or any of the purposes for which Courts of
    ordinary criminal justice have been constituted under the Code. Section 5
    of the Code sufficiently protects the authorities empowered to function and
E exercise powers under fhe Act, from any such challenge as are directed
    against them, in this case. The fallacy in the reasoning of the Courts below
    lies in their superficial and cursory nature of consideration undertaken
    therein, without reference to the competence and powers of the Parliament
    to specifically and specially provide for trial and punishment of offences
F separately created under a special enactment of Parliament, in a manner
    distinct and separate from the method of trying other ordinary criminal
    offences under the general criminal law of the country.

            At the outset, it must· be noted that. certain infractions which are
    relatable to service broadly fall within the spectrum of disciplinary
G   proceedings. Section I O(m) is an infraction which though normally would
    have attracted departmental proceedings, keeping in view the essentiality
    of force and imminent and ever alert situation in which with high sense
    of morale and duty consciousness the member of this service is expected
    to be demonstrate at all times, a serious view of the same is being taken.
H   But the CRPF, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are disciplined forces
     STATE (UNION OF INDIA) v. RAM SARAN [PASAYAT, J.] 483

and even any infraction which otherwise would not be an offence is A
deemed to be an offence under certain provisions like Section l O(m) of
the Act. Unauthorised absence of an employee staying beyond. the sanc-
tioned period of leave is not an offence in the normal course under the
ordinary criminal law of the land. But as noted above, disciplined forces
with the intention of enforcing discipline have made them punishable B
considering them as offences and have prescribed various sentences. For
such particular purposes the designated officials have been conferred with
magisterial powers. The Assistant Commandant who passed the order
undisputedly acted as a Judicial Magistrate in view of the powers conferred
on him under the Act. The conferment of such power has not been C
distinctly questioned and could not have been questioned in a proceeding,
appeal or a revision under the Code. As long as the specific provision in
Act exists enabling the competent Authority to pass the order under
challenge, the same will have full force and efficacy. It is well settled that
creature of any statute cannot consider the vires of a particular provision D
in that statute or any other statute as well. Exclusive power for such
 purposes are vested under the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the
Constitution') only on Courts exercising powers of judicial Review under
Articles 32/226 of the Constitution alone. While exercising appellate or
 revisional jurisdiction under the Code it is impermissible for any Court to E
decide on the vires of the provision. That is precisely what the Sessions
Judge and the High Court have done in the present case. The vires of a
provision can only be questioned in a writ proceeding before the Consti-
 tutional Court. That being the position, neither the Sessions Judge nor the
 High Court could have found fault with the exercise of jurisdiction by the
Assistant Commandant in exercising magisterial powers. It will also be F
relevant to note that in Ust I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in
Union List, Entry 2 makes the position clear that members of CRPF are
part of the armed forces of the Union Government. The punishments to
be imposed under the Act for various offences are defined by Sections 9
and 10, which have been created by statute. As noted earlier, they are G
deemed offences and in the scheme of enforcing discipline they have been
treated as infractions unbecoming of members belonging to disciplined
forces like the CRPF. That being the position, the Sessions Judge and the
High Court were not justified in holding that the Assistant Commandant
had no jurisdiction to deal with the respondent in the concerned trial.    H
    484               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A        It would also be necessary to take note of Sections lO(m), I 6(2) of
    the Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Code:

            Act

            "Section 10 (m)- Every member ofthe Force who absents himself
B           without leave, or without sufficient cause overstays teave granted
            to him shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
            may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to three
            months' pay, or with both".

C           Section 16(2)- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
            Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) the Central Government
            may invest the Commandant or an Assistant Commandant with
            the powers of a Magistrate of any class for the purpose of
            inquiring into or trying any offence committed by member of the
D           Force and punishable under this Act, or ahy offence committed
            by a member of the Force against the person or property of
            another member:

                  Provided that-

E                 (i) when the offender is on leave or absent from duty, or

                 (ii) when the offence is not connected with the offender's
            duties as a member of the Force, or

                  (iii) when it is a petty offence, even if connected with the
F
             offender's duties as a member of the Force,

            the offence may, if the prescribed authority within the limits of
            whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed, so directs, be
            inquired into or tried by an ordinary criminal court having
G           jurisdiction in the matter".

            Code

            Section 4 : Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and
H           other laws- (I) All offences under the Indian Penal Code ( 45 of
            STATE (UNION OF INDIA) v. RAM SARAN [PASAYAT, J.]                 4~5

              1860) shall be i.nvestigated, inquired into, tried, and otheryvise A
              dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.

                    (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated,
              inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the
              same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being B
              in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring
              into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.

              Section 5 : Saving - Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the
              absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special
              or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction C
              or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed,
              by any other law for the time being in force".

               Provisions of the Code would be applicable to the investigations,
      inquiries into and trials of cases by criminal Courts of various descriptions, D
      being the parent statute, in the absence of any contrary provision in any
      special statute or special provision excluding jurisdiction or applicability
      of the Code. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 deals with offences under the
.     IPC. Second limb of sub-section (2) deals with the exclusion, reading
      " ......... but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating
      the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise E
      dealing with such offences". (See Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak
      Mahajan and Anr., [1994] 3 SCC 440.) In a case involving Bombay
       Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 it was held that the Act was a special
       law providing special procedures for the manner or place of investigating
    . or inquiring into the offences under it, and therefore the provisions thereof F
        .
     ·must prevail and no provisions of the Code can apply. [See Nilratdn Sircar
      v. Lakshmi Narayan Ram Niwas, AIR (1965) SC I].

            Section 5 consists of three components, and as observed in Maru
     Ram etc.etc. v. Union of India and Ors. [19~1] l sec 107, they are as G
     follows:

                    "( l) The Code covers matters covered by it;

                    (2) If a special or local law exists covering the same area,
               the said law is saved and will prevail;                              H
    486                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A                 (3) If there is a special provision to the contrary, that will
             override the special or local law. A "special law", as observed in
             Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, AIR (1964) SC 260, means a law
             enacted for special cases, in special circumstances, as distin-
             guished from the general rules of law laid down as being
             applicable to all cases dealt with by the general law. The Act fits
B
             the description. Additionally, Section I 6(2) of the Act begins with
             a non obstante clause relating to the Code."

          There are parallel provisions to Section IO(m) of the Act in the Army
    Act, I 950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Army Act'). In fact Section ·39
C   of the Army Act deals with 'absence without leave'. The maximum period
    of imprisonment may extend to three years or with such less punishment
    as is mentioned in the said Act itself.

          The inevitable conclusion is that the Assistant Commandant was
D clothed with necessary jurisdiction for trial of the matter.
          Residual question is what would be an appropriate sentence. It is not
    disputed and rather fairly conceded that for a person in a disciplined service
    like the CRPF, any act of indiscipline deserves adequate and stringent ·
    punishment under the Act. In terms of Section I O(m) an employee whd
E absents himself without leave or without sufficient cause overstays leave
    granted to him can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
    extend to one year or with fine which may extend to three months pay or
    with both. The offence has been treated as one of"less heinous offences".
    More heinous offences are provided in Section 9. The Assistant Comman-
F . dant has found the explanation given by the respondent to be not
    acceptable. Therefore, he has been rightly held to have committed a less
    heinous offence. Taking note of the relevant aspects, we feel the fine of
    two months pay which respondent was drawing at the time when the
    proceedings were initiated would meet the ends of justice. By altering the
    punishment we are not belittling the gravity of offence but, in our
G view deterrent punishment must be resorted to when such absence is
    resorted to avoid and evade undertaking a testing or trying venture or
    deployment - essential at any given point of time, and not as a routine in
    the normal course. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

    S.K.S.                                                      Appeal allowed.