Madras High Court
M. Muthuraj vs State Represented By on 13 May, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 02.06.2016 PRONOUNCED ON: 22.06.2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.3640 of 2016 and Crl.M.P. No.1879 of 2016 M. Muthuraj Petitioner vs. State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Bagalur Police Station Hosur, Krishnagiri District Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in Crime No.177 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. For petitioner Mr. K. Chandrasekaran For respondent Mr. C. Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to call for the records in Crime No.177 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.02.2011, two Constables attached to Attebele Police Station in Karnataka, were on usual rounds and found the petitioner/accused moving around suspiciously with a gunny bag. On seeing the policy party, the petitioner/accused attempted to flee. He was caught by the police and when the gunny bag in his possession was checked, it was found to contain two batteries.
3.2 The Police Constables took the petitioner/accused to Attebele Police Station in Karnataka and registered a case on the same day in Attebele P.S. Crime No. 37 of 2011 under Sections 41(i)(d) and 102 Crl.P.C. read with Section 379, I.P.C. The petitioner/accused was arrested by the police and his statement was recorded. The petitioner/accused gave a confession statement, wherein, he has stated that he is an employee of Exide Battery Company at Bagalur in Tamil Nadu and that 25 batteries were stolen from Krish Auto Power Private Ltd., Bagalur in Tamil Nadu with the connivance of one Anand.
3.3 Pursuant to the disclosure made by the petitioner/accused, which is relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, Attebele Police in Karnataka seized 23 batteries from the house of the petitioner/accused in Ram Nagar, Hosur, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner/accused was produced before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka, who remanded the petitioner/accused to custody and later, the petitioner/accused was released on bail. Seizure of 25 batteries was also reported to the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka.
3.4 On the application made by Krish Auto Power Private Ltd., presumably under Section 457, Cr.P.C., the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka, directed the Attebele police to hand over the 25 batteries to them, pursuant to which, Krish Auto Power Private Ltd. received the batteries from the Attebele police as interim custody. The Attebele Police, Karnataka, appear to have come to the conclusion that the theft of the batteries had taken place in Hosur in Tamil Nadu from the premises of Krish Auto Power Private Ltd. and ergo, they believed that, they had no jurisdiction to proceed further in the investigation and prosecute the petitioner/accused before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka. Hence, the Attebelle Police, Karnataka made an application before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka, for transfer of records to the Police Station in Hosur in Tamil Nadu on the ground that they have no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case and prosecute the offender before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka.
3.5 The Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Karnataka, ordered transfer of the entire case to the file of Bagalur Police Station in Hosur, Tamil Nadu. Pursuant to the said order, the entire case diary in Attebelle P.S. Crime No.37 of 2011 was sent by post to the Bagalur Police Station at Hosur in Tamil Nadu, where, the Sub-Inspector of Police re-registered a fresh F.I.R. in Bagalur P.S. Crime No.177 of 2011 under Sections 41(i)(d) and 102 Crl.P.C. read with Section 379 I.P.C. on 13.06.2011 and took up the case for investigation.
3.6 Since all the records were in Kannada language, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bagalur Police Station, Hosur, had them translated into Tamil. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bagalur Police Station Hosur, has been making repeated requests to the Karnataka police to secure the 25 batteries and hand over possession of the same for the purpose of prosecuting the petitioner/accused in Tamil Nadu, for which, the Karnataka police have done nothing, till date. Hence, Crime No.177 of 2011 is still pending.
3.7 Under such circumstances, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the F.I.R. in Bagalur P.S. Crime No.177 of 2011.
4 The Inspector of Police, Bagalur Police Station, Hosur, has filed a status report, in which, the aforestated facts have been narrated.
5 Mr. K. Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, in his usual vehemence and flamboyance, submitted that the Attebelle Police in Karnataka ought not to have transferred the case diary in such a callous manner by post to the Bagalur Police Station in Hosur, Tamil Nadu and the procedure for such transfer having not been followed, the F.I.R. stands vitiated. He also submitted that from 2011 to 2016, the police have not been able to secure the 25 batteries that are said to have been the subject matter of the offence and therefore, further continuance of the investigation is an abuse of process of law.
6 This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
7 To succinctly recapitulate the facts, the petitioner/accused who was apprehended by Attebelle Police in Karnataka, was found in possession of 2 batteries which are said to have been stolen from Krish Auto Power Private Ltd. in Hosur, Tamil Nadu.
8 In the considered opinion of this Court, the Attebelle Police, Karnataka, need not have sought transfer of the case to Tamil Nadu in the light of Section 181(3) Cr.P.C.
181. Place of trial in case of certain offences (3) Any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. 9 From a reading of the above provision, it is crystal clear that the petitioner/accused who is charged for offence of theft under Section 379, I.P.C. can be tried either by the Court in whose jurisdiction, the theft had occurred or by the Court in whose jurisdiction, the stolen property was possessed by him. In this case, the stolen property, viz., 2 batteries were found in the possession of the petitioner/accused within the jurisdiction of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal in Karnataka and that Court would have had jurisdiction to try the petitioner/accused, notwithstanding the fact that actually, the theft was committed from Krish Auto Power Private Ltd. in Hosur, Tamil Nadu.
10 Be that as it may, now, the moot question that arises for consideration of this Court is as to what is the procedure to deal with such cases arising in the border areas of two States.
11 PSO 688 provides an answer for this and the same reads as follows:
688 Communication of intelligence to areas beyond the State.--
(1) It should be clearly understood that the instructions contained in Orders Nos.686 to 688 are not limited to area within the State. It is the duty of the Station-House Officer to communicate to surrounding areas beyond the borders of the State, as promptly and as completely as to surrounding areas within the State, information regarding all classes of crime against property suspected to be the work of habitual criminals who might conceivably have come from or proceeded to areas beyond the Station limits, and information regarding the movements and activities of any such criminals. He must also act as promptly on receipt of information received from areas beyond the borders of the State as he does on receipt of information from within the State. Criminals are prone to take advantage of State borders for the purposes of committing crime and prompt and effective interchange of intelligence is necessary to overcome the difficulties involved in controlling crime and criminals in such border areas.
(G.O.Ms.No.1556, Home, 29 July 1936) (2) Meetings between bordering officers for effecting co-operation in connection with the control of organized crime and of criminals.--
(a) In order to secure satisfactory co-operation between the Police of neighbouring areas for the purpose of control of organized crime and of criminals, all Executive Officers from the rank of Sub-Inspector to Superintendent of Police, both of the District and Railway Police, should keep up frequent and confidential intercourse by correspondence and meetings with officers of corresponding rank in the areas bordering their jurisdiction, whether within or without the State of Tamil Nadu Meetings should take place when there is current matter for personal discussion and may be held on the frontier or elsewhere as found convenient. They should take place as often as is necessary for the purpose for which they are intended and no year should be allowed to pass without at least one meeting.
12 The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, has issued a Circular dated 13.05.2013 to meet such exigencies, which is worth extracting verbatim:
Proposals are being received for transfer of cases to another state or to another district on point of jurisdiction. I find that many of these proposals are being forwarded without due scrutiny by senior officers. Often these proposals are sent after unwarranted delay.
2. The following instructions are issued for strict compliance in future:
(i) Any proposal for transfer on point of jurisdiction should be sent without delay
(ii) The proposal should be sent after required preliminary investigation
(iii) Statements of the complainant and other witnesses as are necessary to establish the place of occurrence must be available in the CD file
(iv) The S.H.O. should initiate a proposal in the proforma enclosed. The CD file should be sent to the SP/COP along with proforma.
(v) The SP/COP will forward the proposal along with his remarks/recommendations through the proper channel.
(vi) ADG L&O will approve and issue orders if the units concerned are within his jurisdiction. If it involves transfer from or to Chennai City or transfer to another State, it should be put up to me for orders with remarks of ADG L&O.
(vii) Once proceedings are received approving the transfer, the CD file along with the proceedings should be forwarded to the concerned by the SP/COP. (or DGP of another State, if it involves transfer to another State).
(viii) It should be ensured that if the case has to be transferred to another State, authenticated English version for all materials in Tamil enclosed.
13 There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure as to how these matters should be dealt with nor is there any prohibition in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the police officer of a border district to send the case diary by post to the Station House Officer of the police station in the neighbouring State. After all, procedure is an handmaid of justice and not its servant. It would have been an ideal situation had the Superintendent of Police of Attebelle District, Karnataka, handed over the case diary file to the Superintendent of Police of Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu, during the meetings of the Superintendents of Police of border districts. Failure to do that can, in no way, efface the crime of theft. Apart from that, if the police are not able to get custody of 25 batteries on account of procedural wrangle, the petitioner/accused cannot take advantage of it and seek quashment of the F.I.R. An offence can be proved with substantial and reliable evidence, even if the corpus delicti is not available.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the respondent police to complete the investigation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and either close the prosecution or file final report, as the case may be, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Connected Crl.M.P. is closed.
22.06.2016 cad Index: Yes/No To 1 The Sub-Inspector of Police Bagalur Police Station Hosur, Krishnagiri District 2 The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104 P.N. PRAKASH, J.
cad Crl.O.P. No.3640 of 2016 22.06.2016