Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(5) It will be seen that Legislature has provided a fairly detailed reasonable mode to see that the liberty of a citizen is not unnecessarily or unduly curtailed. Procedurally the Code dees provide for the protection of a citizen by requiring the reasons for proceeding against him to be supplied to him under Section 111 read with Section 114 Criminal Procedure Code and also for reasons to be recorded by the Magistrate if he requires the person to execute a bond in terms of Section 116(3). The unfortunate aspect however, is that most of the time the procedure which is provided in the Code is observed more in the breach. Also unfortunately quote sometime the power under Section 107 are invoked quite rashly thus causing great deal of avoidable suffering. The- Executive Magistrates are also police officers and by their very nature and training find it difficult to demarcate their dual functions as the custodians of law and order and asa protector of the human liberty. That executive and judicial functions should be merged in one functionary is a sad commentary 34 years after the Constitution came into force considering that Article 50 In the Chapter of Directive Principles of the Constitution has directed that the State shall take steps to separate judiciary' from the executive in the public services of the State.' (6) Unfortunately, however, the responsibility for vesting the powers under Section 107 exclusively in the Executive Magistrate is to be laid at the doors of the Law Commission which in its 41st Report published in 1969 recommended that the functions in this section should be assigned to the Executive Magistrate and that it is not necessary to invest the Judicial Magistrates with the concurrent powers. How one little gate-way which destroys the concept of separation of executive and judiciary can result in wider power being snatched by the Executive is clear from the history of legislation of Sections 108 to 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In that very report (41st) the Law Commission had noted that as power under sections 108 to 110 affects the liberty of the person against whom the proceedings are instituted, it is desirable to vest those powers exclusively in judicial magistrates. The Law Commission also did not think that the powers under these sections need be vested concurrently in both the judicial and executive magistrates although this was the position in some States at present. According to the Law Commission under a statutory scheme of separation, such a system is likely to create confusion and even otherwise has nothing to commend it. The Law Commission, however, did not realise that having provided an opening that the proceedings under Section 107 which also deal with liberty of citizens, may vest in the Executive Magistrates, this argument had lost its punch. Though in the unamended Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Sections 108 to110 require proceedings to be taken before a judicial magistrate of the first class the said part was amended by Act No.63180 by substituting the word "Executive Magistrate" for a "Judicial Magistrate". It is indeed ironical that though the legislature may seek to justify the provision of a "Executive Magistrate" in Section 107 by seeking aid from the report of the Law Commission, yet at the same time it should have overturned it when amending the Code in 1980 and thus acting against the specific recommendation of the Law Commission with regard to Sections 108 to 110 Criminal Procedure Code . The position inDelhi, however, is even worse. In the other States where the office of Police Commissioner does not exist, the exercise of power under Section 107 is atleast exercised by the Executive Magistrate who belong to administrative service and is not concerned with day to day maintenance of law and order, and may therefore, make an attempt to bring an objective approach to the problem. But in Delhi we are governed by the Delhi Police Act, 1978 which is in force since 1-7-78. Section 70 of the said Act authorises the Central Government to empower the Commissioner or any other subordinate to the Commissioner of Police not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police to exercise and perform in relation to Such area in Delhi as may be specified in the notification, the powers and duties of an Executive Magistrate under such of the provisions of the said code us may be specified in thenotification. .In exercise of the said powers the Government of'India issued a notification No. So 422 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part Ii, dated 20-11-1978 empowering every Additional Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police to exercise and perform in relation to all area in the Union Territory of Delhi the powers and duties of an 'executive magistrate under Sections 107, 111, 113. 115, 116, 117, 118 and 121. Thus in Delhi the capital of Republic of India proceedings which have serious repercussions concerning the liberties of the citizens of India are to be controlled by police officers exercising the powers of executive magistrates. A more serious in-road on the concept of separation of powers between instrumentalities States, namely the judiciary and executive is hard to imagine though unfortunately the ancestry for then situation may be traced back to peculiar recommendation of law commission report. But whatever the source, the seriousness of the situation is not lessned.Need one be surprised at the consequences which must inevitably flow from such a retrogressive step.