Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. I had occasion to consider P.S.O. 145 in N. George v. R. Krishnaswami, 1990 LW Cri 525. Following the enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, I held that P.S.O. 145 did not have any statutory force and, therefore, proceedings challenged on the ground, that the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence under S. 352 read with S. 34, I.P.C. was rejected.

15. The last of the case to be referred to will be the pronouncement of S. T. Ramalingam, J. in Pandurangam v. The State by Inspector of Police, Thirukazhukundram, 1987 LW Cri 400. In an exhaustive judgment, the learned Judge had taken note of the prior decisions of P. N. Ramaswami, J., Kader, J. and Singaravelu, J. and ultimately concluded, that P.S.O. 588A had no statutory force and the non-observance by the Investigating Officer to follow the said P.S.O. was not an illegality. The learned Judge entirely agreed with the view expressed by Singaravelu, J., while pointing out that there was practically no conflict between the views of Kader, J. and Singaravelu, J. since Kader, J. had not gone into the vires of P.S.O. 588A. The learned Judge, after eatracting S. 9 of the Madras District Police Act which enabled the Director General of Police to make rules so as to control the police force in the State, observed that the said section did not enable the Director General of Police to frame a police standing order in the nature of P.S.O. 588A.

This position has been noticed by S. T. Ramalingam, J. It looks apparent that asterisk marks were given whenever approval of the Government was obtained. So the presence or absence of asterisk mark may not change the statutory validity of P.S.O. and more so when such power is not conserved under S. 9 of the Madras District Police Act. I entirely agree with S. T. Ramalingam, J., that the Director General of Police could not have made P.S.O. 588A in the nature it exists, under S. 9 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act.

18. Administrative instructions in P.S.O. 588A issued on the basis of the decision of P. N. Ramaswami, J. in Ramakrishnayya's case, commend observance, but merely because the provisions of the order have not been followed in a particular case by the Investigating Agency, that would not constitute illegality to quash the prosecutions launched. The decisions rendered by P. N. Ramaswami, J. in Ramakrishnayya v. State, 1954 MWN Cr 9; David Annoussamy, J. in Ekambaram v. Sundaramurthy, 1989 (1) Crimes 458 and S. T. Ramalingam, J. in Pandurangan v. State by Inspector of Police, Thirukazhukundaram, 1987 LW Cri 400 have dealt with the procedure to be followed in cases and counter, taken on file either on the basis of two final reports or one final report and not her private complaint.