Skip to content


Dr. S.M. Kalligudd and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Karnataka High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Writ Petition Nos. 31973 to 31978 and 31023 of 1996

Judge

Reported in

1998(1)ALT(Cri)123; 1998(1)KarLJ252

Acts

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 2, 154 and 156; Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976; Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964; Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976; Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964; Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 107 to 120, 120-B, 143, 144, 145, 147 to 151, 217, 218, 332, 333, 353, 379, 403, 406, 409, 417, 418, 419, 420, 423, 424, 426, 427, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436, 447, 448, 455, 456, 457, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472. 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 477-A; Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Sections 54, 55, 56, 94, 98. 113 and 114

Appellant

Dr. S.M. Kalligudd and Others

Respondent

State of Karnataka and Others

Appellant Advocate

Sri R.N. Narasimha Murthy, Senior Adv., ;Sri B.B. Bajentri, ;K.R. Srinivasan, ;Sri Jairaj and ;Sri Dhanraj, Advs.

Respondent Advocate

Sri S. Vijaya Shankar, Advocate-General and ;Sri S.R. Bannurmath, State Public Prosecutor

Excerpt:


- constitution of india article 226; [anand byrareddy, j] establishment of petrol bunk prescription of distance of 300 meters between two adjacent fuel stations held, the prescription is in respect of fuel filling stations situated adjacent to each other and not to stations which are on opposite sides of road. there is no minimum distance between such stations on opposite sides of road, prescribed. proposed fuel station of respondent and existing fuel station of petitioner were on either side of a high way. prohibition of distance between two adjoining stations would not apply. .....indian penal code (in short 'ipc'). the copies of the first information reports (in short 'fir') have been filed as annexures-a-1 to a-6. from the facts disclosed in the fir, the allegations transpiring against the petitioners are that they in conspiracy with their co-accused have given appointments in the bangalore city corporation on the basis of false and forged documents for mutual wrongful gains. the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the said police cases on the ground that the task force is constituted under notification no. 800 dated 27-5-1996 (annexure-h) has no competence under the provisions of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short 'cr.p.c.'), either to register the cases in question against the petitioners and/or to proceed with the investigation thereof.2. the above referred notification bearing no. 800, dated 27-5-1996 (annexure-h), issued by the state government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of section 2 of cr. p.c., reads as under:--'notification no. hd 231 peg 95, bangalore, dated 27th may, 1996 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of section 2 of the code of criminal procedure,.....

Judgment:


ORDER

1. The petitioners herein are employees under the respondent-Corporation of the City of Bangalore. According to them, they are working as Medical Officer, Assistant Commissioner in-charge of Administration, First Division Clerk, Assistant Revenue Officer, Second Division Assistant and the Deputy Commissioner (West), respectively. These petitioners have been made accused in Crime Nos. 3 of 1996, 4 of 1996, 7 of 1996, 8 of 1996, 9 of 1996 and 10 of 1996, which have been registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (in short 'the Task Force'), under Sections 420, 465, 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The copies of the First Information Reports (in short 'FIR') have been filed as Annexures-A-1 to A-6. From the facts disclosed in the FIR, the allegations transpiring against the petitioners are that they in conspiracy with their co-accused have given appointments in the Bangalore City Corporation on the basis of false and forged documents for mutual wrongful gains. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the said police cases on the ground that the Task Force is constituted under Notification No. 800 dated 27-5-1996 (Annexure-H) has no competence under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), either to register the cases in question against the petitioners and/or to proceed with the investigation thereof.

2. The above referred Notification bearing No. 800, dated 27-5-1996 (Annexure-H), issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of Section 2 of Cr. P.C., reads as under:--

'NOTIFICATION

No. HD 231 PEG 95, Bangalore, dated 27th May, 1996

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the Government of Karnataka hereby declares that with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette the place specified in column (1) of the Schedule below as police station for the area specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof, in respect of offence specified thereunder.

SCHEDULE

Nameof the police station

Areasfalling within the jurisdiction of the police station

(1)

(2)

Officeof the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force,Bangalore

BangaloreMetropolitan area in respect of the offences specified below.

The Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force specified in column (1) of the Schedule shall have the jurisdiction in respect of the offences under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964, the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 and read with Chapter II, Section 34, Indian Penal Code along with relevant main offence, Chapter V under Sections 107 to 120, Indian Penal Code, Chapter VI under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code along with relevant main offence, Chapter VIII under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147 to 151, Indian Penal Code, Chapter XI under Sections 217 and 218 of Indian Penal Code, Chapter XVI under Sections 332, 333 and 353 of Indian Penal Code, Chapter XVII under Sections 379, 403, 406, 409, 417, 418, 419, 420, 423, 424, 426, 427, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436, 447, 448, 455, 456 and 457 of Indian Penal Code, Chapter XVIII under Sections 456, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 477A of Indian Penal Code, and Sections 54, 55, 56, 94, 98, 113 and 114 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963'.

3. Clause (s) of Section 2 of Criminal Procedure Code under which the above notification issued by the State Government 'Police Station' to mean any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government to be a police station and includes any local area specified by the Government in this behalf. If construed in the context of this definition what prima facie transpires is that the State Government has under the above notification at Annexure-H has declared the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bangalore MetropolitanTask Force, to be a police station. But this police station will be so in respect of the offences specified in the notification which are suspected to have been committed within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area.

4. It is in the above context that Sri Narasimha Murthy, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has raised the ground that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners being only of Indian Penal Code and not being falling under Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short the 'Corporation Act') or both under the said Act and Indian Penal Code, the Officer-in-charge of the police station constituted under the impugned notification, had no jurisdiction to either register the police cases in question or to go ahead with investigations thereof. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondents has submitted that, once a post or place is declared to be police station within the meaning of clause (s) of Section 2 of Criminal Procedure Code, then its jurisdiction cannot be held as limited into any geographical area or the nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the accused persons.

5. The Task Force, has been created by the State Government under its order dated 19-3-1996, which has been placed as Annexure-F to these writ petitions. The material part of the said order reads as under:--

'


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //