T.E. Sugumaran vs State, by Sub Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar, Police Station

Arunachalam, J.—The Petitioner is A-1 in S.T.C. No. 70 of 1987, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Chengleput (erstwhile judicial II Class Magistrate). He is being prosecuted along with three others, for alleged commission of an offence punishable u/s 75 of the Madras City Police Act. The Sub Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, after registering crime Nos. 527 to 530 of 1986, against the Petitioner and others on 25-12-1986, had chosen to file a final report before the trial Magistrate on 26-12-1986, for the offence stated above. The prosecution case is that on 25-12-1986 at or about 9 P.M. at Kattangulathur Bazaar the Petitioner and the other accused were found behaving in a violent, boisterous, disorderly, riotous and indecent manner, by using abusive and insulting words on the date and time mentioned above, causing breach of public peace.

In this petition filed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the pending proceedings, as not maintainable. Mr. S. Pichai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contended that u/s 54A of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, the provisions of the Madras City Police Act had been extended to Kattangulathur village, by way of a Notification published in the Tamil Nadu Official Gazette. If that be so, the provisions of the Madras City Police Act will not he applicable. He contended that the village cannot be deemed to be a town within the meaning of the said Police Act.

The second contention was, that Section 75 of the City Police Act being a cognizable offence, the investigating agency owed a duty to follow the procedure contemplated in Chapter XIII of Code of Criminal procedure and that not having been done, the entire proceedings, get vitiated.

I have beard Mr. Hamid Sultan, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

On the first contention, the Respondent''s counsel was not able to clarify the matter as to whether the provisions of the Madras City Police Act have been extended to Kattangulathur Village. Anyhow, this factor need not have to detain, the decision in this petition, for on the second ground, the Petitioner is bound to succeed. Time and again this Court has held, that in cases registered u/s 75 of the City Police Act, which is a cognizable offence, the investigating agency must carry out investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is seen from the records forwarded to Court u/s 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, that except the first information report and the charge sheet, no other material had been sent. It is, therefore, apparent that there has been no investigation in accordance with the provisions of Sections 155 and 157 of the Code. Witnesses have not been examined and statement have not been recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 161(3) of the Code. Due to such non-examination, the Petitioner could not be furnished with copies of statements of witnesses, in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 207 of the Code. The report therefore, is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 173 of the Code. On the facts stated above. I have no hesitation in upholding the second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The proceedings in S.T.C. No. 70 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Chingelput, cannot be allowed to survive any longer and hence the proceedings therein, in so far as they relate to the Petitioner, shall stand quashed.