STATE OF KERALA Vs. P.B.SOURABHAN & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 192 of 2016, Judgment Date: Mar 04, 2016

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.9088 of 2012)

State of Kerala .. Appellant (s)

Versus
P.B. Sourabhan & Ors. ...Respondent (s)

WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.9388 of 2012)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

Leave granted.

The short question that arises for decision in the present appeals is
whether the State Police Chief/Director General of Police is empowered to
appoint a superior police officer to investigate a crime case registered
outside the territorial jurisdiction of such officer.
The High Court answered the aforesaid question in the negative giving rise
to the present appeals by the State as well as by the complainant in one of
the cases (who is also the accused in the other case) at whose instance the
appointment was made and authorisation issued by the State Police Chief.

Over certain matrimonial disputes between the parties, two police cases
i.e. Crime No. 621 of 2011 and Crime No. 637 of 2011 were registered in the
Pettah Police Station. The complainant in Crime No. 637 of 2011, who is the
accused in Crime No. 621 of 2011, had filed a representation before the
State Police Chief for further investigation by a competent/ neutral
officer. On the said representation, the State Police Chief by an order
dated 24.01.2012 directed the District Police Chief of Thiruvananthapuram
City that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment,
Thiruvananthapuram City may be entrusted with further investigation of
Crime Nos.621 of 2011 and 637 of 2011 of Pettah Police Station. Pursuant to
the above direction of the State Police Chief, one M.G.Haridas, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Cantonment, Thiruvananthapuram City was authorised
to conduct further investigation of the two cases and send weekly reports.
This was by order dated 12.03.2012 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (L
& O) Thiruvananthapuram City. Thereafter it appears that the specially
authorised and entrusted officer filed an application before the learned
trial court for further investigation of the two cases which was allowed by
the said court on 20.03.2012. The aforesaid order appointing M.G. Haridas,
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment to conduct further
investigation of the two cases and the order of the learned trial court
dated. 20.03.2012 granting permission for further investigation under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C were assailed before the High Court. The challenge
before the High Court was primarily on the ground that the said orders are
in excess of the powers vested by Section 36 of the Cr. P.C. and that
Section 18 of the Kerala Police Act which vests the administration,
supervision, direction and control of the police throughout the State in
the State Police Chief cannot override the provisions of Section 36 Cr.
P.C.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the
matter.
Section 36 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 18(1) of the Police Act are in the
following terms :
“36. Powers of superior officers of police :-
Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police
station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which
they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits
of his station.”

“18. State Police Chief :-
The administration, supervision, direction and control of the Police
throughout the State shall, subject to the control of the Government, be
vested in an officer designated as the State Police Chief.”

Section 36 empowers police officers superior in rank to an officer in
charge of a Police Station to exercise the same powers as that of an
officer in charge of a police station insofar as the territorial/local area
within the jurisdiction of such superior police officers is concerned.
Section 18(1) of the State Police Act, on the other hand, vests the
administration, supervision, direction and control of the police throughout
the State in the State Police Chief. The power under Section 36, on a plain
reading thereof, is to be exercised by the District Police Chief who, by
virtue of the said section, is empowered to appoint an officer above the
rank of an officer in charge of a police station to exercise the same
powers as may be exercised by an officer in charge of the police station.
This is, however, subject to the condition that such superior officer would
be competent to exercise powers within the territorial/local limits of his
jurisdiction. We do not see how Section 36 Cr.P.C, in any way, can debar
the exercise of powers by the State Police Chief to appoint any superior
officer who, in his opinion, would be competent and fit to investigate a
particular case keeping in view the circumstances thereof. Section 36
Cr.P.C does not fetter the jurisdiction of the State Police Chief to pass
such an order based on his satisfaction. It is the satisfaction of the
State Police Chief, in the light of the facts of a given case, that would
be determinative of the appointment to be made in which situation the
limits of jurisdiction will not act as fetter or come in the way of
exercise of such jurisdiction by the superior officer so appointed. Such
an appointment would not be hedged by the limitations imposed by Section 36
Cr.P.C. Section 18 of the State Police Act, on the other hand, does not
confer any such power and merely recognises the State Police Chief as the
head of the police force in the State.

In the instant case the High Court, in our considered view, was not right
in reading the constraints imposed by Section 36 of the Cr.P.C. on the
powers of the State Police Chief to appoint a suitable and competent
officer to investigate a case irrespective of the limits of local
jurisdiction of such officer, if such a course of action is required. This
is not to say that the power of the State Police Chief would not be
amenable to the judicial process; it can always be subjected to challenge
on grounds of malafide or as being without justification and reasonable
cause. This, however, is not the ground(s) on which the impugned actions
were challenged before the High Court. Furthermore, a perusal of the
representation on the basis of which the appointment of the special officer
was made by the State Police Chief goes to show that what was sought for
was the appointment of a neutral and impartial police officer to conduct
further investigation in a fair and unbiased manner without specifically
naming of any particular officer in the said application.

For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot agree with the view taken by the High
Court and the conclusions reached. Consequently, the order dated 01.08.2012
passed by the High Court is set aside and both appeals are allowed.

…….…………………………...J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]

…………………………….……J.
[PRAFULLA C. PANT]

NEW DELHI;
MARCH 04, 2016.

Back to Judgments