Madhya Pradesh High Court
Royal Digital Cable Coomunication Pvt. ... vs Union Of India on 18 January, 2017
W.P.No.635/2017
18/1/2017
Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on admission.
Petitioner engaged in the work of Cable
operation having provisional registration under Rule
11(E) of the Cable Television Networks (Amendment
) Rules 2012 for operating as a Multi System
operator (MSO) in the Digital Addressable System
(DAS) in the areas in the District of Burhanpur in
Madhya Pradesh notified vide notification No.2534
(E) dt.11.11.2011 has filed this petition seeking
direction to respondent no.3 to 5,i.e, District
Magistrate Burhanpur, Sub Divisional Magistrate Burhanpur and Superintendent of Police Burhanpur to take appropriate action on his representation filed against respondent no.6. It is alleged that respondent no.6 has violated the provisions of Section 4A of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995. It is urged that vide sub Section (2) of Section 16 of 1995; contravention of Section 4A has been made a cognizable offence.
True it is that certain stipulations are laid down vide Section 4A of 1995 Act to be adhered to for transmission of programmes through addressable system. And vide sub Section (2) of Section 16, the contravention of Section 4 A is made a cognizable offence which as per Section 18 means that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act of 1995 except upon a complaint in writing made by any authorised officer. The Authorised officer as per clause (a) of sub section (2) of Section 16 of 1995 Act means within his local limits of jurisdiction, a District Magistrate or a Sub Divisional Officer, or a Commissioner of Police and includes any other officer notified in the official Gazette.
Applicability of the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is not shown to be ruled out and Section 154 whereof provides that
154. Information in cognizable cases.
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant;
and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
Furthermore, Section 156 Cr.P.C envisages that :-
156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.-
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
Thus where a cognizable offence is said to have been committed, the remedy lies under Section 154 and if still no action is taken, then the remedy is under Section 190 read with Section 156(3) (please see : Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016) 6 SCC 277).
No such recourse is shown to have been taken by the petitioner who seeks mandamus to the respondent to take action on representation.
As the petitioner has the statutory remedy available for redressal of the grievance, the petitioner is set at liberty to avail the same.
In view whereof, this Court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petition fails and is dismissed.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE das