Shiv Kumar Singh and Another vs State of Chhattisgarh

R.S. Garg, J.—By this revision petition, the applications, who stand convicted for offences punishable u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities

Act, seek to challenge the correctness, validity and the propriety of the order dated 18-4-2001 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 0/2001 which arose out of

the Special Criminal Case No. 163/96 State v. Shiv Kumar and Anr.

The facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that after the conviction of the accused persons when the finger prints as required

under Rule 254 of the Rules and Orders (Criminal) were sought to be taken, the Applicants took an exception to it and submitted before the Court

that as Section 3/7 is not mentioned in Rule 254, the Court was not authorised or entitled to take the finger prints. The learned Special Judge

rejected the application simply observing that Rule 254 does not forbid the Court from taking the said finger prints, therefore, the finger prints

could be taken. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Applicants have come to this Court.

Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Applicants, placing his strong reliance on the language of Rule 254 of the Rules and Orders

(Criminal) submits that if the accused is convicted under Chapter XII, XVI, XVII or XVIII of the Indian Penal Code or u/s 109 or 110 of the

Code or under the Central Provinces and Berar Prohibition Act, 1938 (C.P. VII of 1938), only then the finger prints of a convict can be taken on

a prescribed form. According to him, as Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act does not find any mention in Rule 254 of the Rules and

Orders (Criminal), the Special Judge was not authorised to require the Applicants to give their finger prints.

Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Counsel for the State, submits that a fair understanding of Section 254 would clearly authorise the Judge to take the

finger prints and the revision is misconceived.

I have heard the parties.

For proper appreciation, it is necessary to see Rule 254. The said rule reads as under:

When a Sessions Judge or a magistrate of the first class not acting in the exercise of summary powers or a magistrate of the second class

convicts an accused person of an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI, XVII or XVIII of the Indian Penal Code or u/s 109 or 110 of the

Code or under the Central Provinces and Berar Prohibition Act, 1938 (C.P. VII of 1938), he shall cause the finger prints of the accused to be

taken in the space reserved for that purpose on the revers of the special forms (No. 188 on Schedule V) prescribed for finding and sentence in

such cases. In every such case, two forms shall be used, a set of finger prints being taken on each. One form shall constitute the finding and

sentence by the judge or magistrate and shall form part of the record of the case. The other shall be filled up and certified as a true copy of the

finding and sentence, and shall be retained with the record of the case until the disposal of the appeal or application for revision, if one is preferred,

or until the expiry of the period for appealing if no appeal is preferred. If the conviction is not set aside in appeal or revision, the certified copy of

the sentence and finding shall be forwarded to the District Superintendent of Police of the district from which the case was brought. On the copy so

forwarded, a certificate stating the result of the appeal or revision shall be endorsed and shall be signed by the forwarding judge or magistrate

himself.

Section 254 is to be read with its grammatical variations and not with a dogmatic approach. The first and foremost principle for interpretation is

that when the legislature constitutes a particular section or Rule, then it applies the rule of proper interpretation. Neither there is any surplus edge

nor there is any wastage. A court while interpreting a particular provision of law has to see that the legislature would not add unnecessary words

nor would keep any superfluous words. The second principle for appreciation would be that what is the placement of the words. A particular word

would qualify a particular phrase or all the phrases. The principles of ""ejusdem generis"" would clearly apply to a case where the intention of

legislature is to be considered. A word or a qualifying clause must be interpreted keeping in view the company which it keeps. The principles of

redendo singula singulis"" would also be applicable to a particular phrase, where the Court has to see that a particular word of phrase would

qualify a particular word or a phrase. Justice G.P. Singh in his celebrated work ""Interpretation of Statute"" has given the best example for

application of this principle by saying that if somebody says that ""if any one shall draw or load any sword or a gun"" then the word ""draw"" would

apply to the ""sword"" only and the word ""load"" to ""gun"" only because it is impossible to load a sword of draw a gun.

If these basic principles are applied and Section 254 is seen in its true perspective it would show the following.

When a Sessions Judge or a Magistrate of the First Class not acting in the exercise of summary powers, he shall call the finger prints of the

accused to be taken in the space reserved for that purpose on the reverse of the special forms. The second clause is that when a Magistrate of the

Second Class convicts an accused person of an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI, XVII or XVIII of I.P.C. or u/s 109 or 110 of the

Code or under the Central Provinces and Berar Prohibition Act, 1938, he shall cause the finger prints of the accused to be taken on the special

form. The submission of Shri Agrawal that a Sessions Judge or a Magistrate is entitled to take the finger prints of the accused where the accused is

convicted under the particular Chapters or under the particular Acts as mentioned in Rule 254, if is accepted then it would lead to a chaotic

condition. If this argument is accepted, then any person who is convicted under Chapter V to Chapter XI, Chapters XIII, XIV, XV, XIX, XX,

XX-A, XXI, XXII and XXIII would not be required to give his finger prints. It is to be seen that Chapter-V relates to abetment, Chapter V-A

relates to criminal conspiracy, Chapter-VI relates to offences against the State, other Chapters relate to such other offences which are against

public servants, the public peace, tranquility, elections, public justice, religion, marriage etc. In fact the word ''or'' placed between ""summary

powers"" and ""a magistrate"" would clearly show that the word ''or'' is to be read as disjunctive. Ordinarily unless the context requires, the word ''or''

cannot be read as ''and''. If the context so requires, then the rule of interpretation permits a Court to read the word ''or'' as ''and'' or vice versa but

while adopting such rule of interpretation the Court must see that the interpretation of the ultimate meaning by interchanging the words should not

lead to absurdity. If the word ''or'' in the present context is read as ''and'', it would lead to an impossible situation. But if the word ''or'' is read as a

disjunctive, it would project the clear intention of the legislature. When a Sessions Judge or a magistrate or the first class is not acting in the

exercise of summary powers, he would certainly be entitled to take the finger prints of the accused persons after he records conviction of the

accused. A magistrate of the second class who has limited powers when convicts an accused person of an offence punishable under Chapter XII,

XVI, XVII or XVIII of I.P.C. or u/s 109 or 110 of the Code or under the Central Provinces and Berar Prohibition Act, 1938, he would be

entitled to take the finger prints of the convict on the form specially prescribed. The language of Rule 254 is plain and simple. It certainly authorises

a Sessions Judge to take the finger prints of the convict in case where the Sessions Judge was not exercising his summary powers.

The order passed by the court below is maintained but for the reasons aforesaid.

The revision petition is dismissed.