Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The next question is, whether the words "any such duty or authority as aforesaid" in Sub-section (8) of Section 80 cover an authority to take down statements in a police investigation, Referring back to Sub-section (1) of Section 80, the duty must be imposed or the authority conferred

(a) by some provision of the Act, or

(b) by some provision of a rule, order or direction lawfully made or given under the Act.

6. There is no question here of any authority conferred, under head (b), The only question is whether the duty or authority is one that is imposed or conferred by some provision of the Act within the meaning of Sub-section (1). Admittedly, there is no direct provision in the Police Act about a police-officer taking down statements in a police investigation. But the Government Pleader, in his arguments, relied upon clauaes (b) and (F) of Sub-section (1) of Section 51 of the Act. Section 51(l) runs: "Every police-officer shall (6) to the beat of his ability, obtain intelligence concerning the commission of cognizable offences or designs to commit such offences, and lay such information and take such other steps consistent with law and with the orders of his superiors, as shall be best calculated to bring offenders to justice or to prevent the commission of offences". Clause (f) requires him to "discharge such duties as are imposed upon him by any law relating to revenue or other law at the time in force."

84. On the further question as to how far the alleged acts of the officers fall within Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 80 of the Bombay -District Police Act, the English authorities based on English statutes differently worded are of little assistance. On the wording of Section 80 of Bom. Act IV" of 1890 two questions arise. Firstly, whether the duty imposed or authority conferred could be said to be by any provisions of the Act or whether, as Fawcett J. was inclined to think, could be said rather to be a duty imposed or authority conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure is adjective criminal law and Chapter V defines the powers of the police to investigate. The duties and powers of investigation into cognizable cases are laid down under Section 156. Section 160 authorizes any police-officer making an investigation under that Chapter to require in writing the attendance before himself of any persons. Section 161 directs their oral examination, which, as is plain from Section 162, may, if the police-officer chooses, be reduced to writing. Similarly, Chapter V of the Bombay District Police Act defines the executive powers and duties of the police and Section 51(1), Clause (b), directs that every police-officer, to the best of his ability, should obtain intelligence concerning the commission of cognizable offences or designs to commit such offences and lay such information and take such other steps consistent with law and with the orders of his superiors, as shall be best calculated to bring offenders to justice. This duty includes, in our opinion, the duty and authority conferred by the section quoted above of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 59, therefore, is wide, and the fact that a portion of the duty and authority under Section 51 is also included in the duty and authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure does not preclude the limitation in Sub-section (3) or notice in Sub-section (4) prescribed by Section 80 of the Bombay District Police Act. This view is in accordance with the ruling of this Court in Queen-Empress v. Ramchandra (1885) Unrep. Cr. C. 220 and the assumption in Madhav Ganpatprasad v. Majidkhan (1917) i.l.r. 41 Bom. 737, s.c. L.R. 677