Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioner is a journalist and has been residing in the City of Ahmedabad. It appears that there were some quarrels in the area where the petitioner has been residing. Therefore, one Mr. Ramamurthy lodged information with the police against the petitioner at Naranpura Police Station Ahmedabad. The information disclosed that the petitioner had committed three offences punishable under the I. P. C, One was under Section 352, another was under Section 506(2), and the third was under Section 504 of the Code.. The petitioner was thereupon called to the Police Station and was taken in police custody. Within 24 hours he was produced before the Magistrate who enlarged him on bail. Thereafter the police filed against the petitioner charge-sheet in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, City of Ahmedabad.

The second para of the notification provides:

...notwithstanding anything contained in Cr P.C. 1898, any offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. 1860, when committed within the municipal limits of the Cities of Ahmedabad and Sholapur shall be non-bailable.
The first declaration was made under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 and the second declaration was made under Sub-section (2) of Section 10. We are concerned in this case with the impugned notification in its application to the city of Ahmedabad. In 1937 offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. was made cognizable if it was committed within the Municipal limits of the City of Ahmedabad. It is undisputed that the Municipal limits; of City of Ahmedabad in 1937 did not extend to Patrakar Colony where the offence in the instant case is said to have been committed. Municipal limits of the city of Ahmedabad in the notification issued in 1937 must necessarily mean the municipal limits of the city of Ahmedabad as they were in 1937. Different considerations would have prevailed with us if the notification had stated that the offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. would be congnizable when committed within the Municipal limits of the city of Ahmedabad fixed from time to time. Therefore, by virtue of its own force, the notification issued on 15th November, 1937 cannot render offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C., if committed in Patrakar Colony which is now in the city of Ahmedabad, cognizable. In our opinion, therefore, the notification dated 15th November, 1937 has no application to the instant case.

13. Mr. Nanavati who appears on behalf of the State Government has produced before us another notification issued by the Government of Gujarat on 31st July, 1970 under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. It renders cognizable and non-bailable an offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. if committed inter alia in the villages under the jurisdiction of Navrangpura police station. One of the villages mentioned therein is Vadaj. Unfortunately, this notification which Mr. Nanavati has shown to us was not produced on the record of this case earlier by the State Government. They ought to have done so. There is no excuse for not producing it on record. If the State Government wants to rely upon a notification, it must produce it in Court and give a reasonable opportunity to the other side to meet it, In the instant case we have taken it on record and looked into it because that notification was shown to Mr. Pandit at the time when the petition was admitted. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner had a reasonable opportunity of meeting it. The question which has arisen for our consideration is whether Patrakar Colony is a part of Vadaj as specified in the second notification referred to above. Mr. Nanavati asked us to take judicial notice of the fact that the area in which Patrakar Colony is situate was a part of Vadaj in 1970 when the second notification was issued. We do not think we can take judicial notice of such a fact - a fact which can easily be proved and a fact which is not within the ordinary knowledge of common man. We, therefore, called upon him to produce evidence to show that Patrakar Colony where the offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. is alleged to have been committed was a part of village Vadaj in 1970 when the second notification was issued. In response to the direction issued by us, the Talati of village Vadaj has shown us the map of the village. That map shows that the revenue survey number on which Patrakar Colony stands at present was a part of village Vadaj in 1970. We are satisfied with this evidence. Obviously, therefore, the second mentioned notification applies to the instant case.

15. The next question which we are required to consider is whether the impugned notification of 1937 and the subsequent supplementary notification of 1970 are ultra vires Article 14. The argument which has been raised by Mr. Pandit is that there is no rational basis on which residents of the City of Ahmedabad can be isolated for a different treatment from the residents of other areas of the State. If we have no doubt in our minds that there is no rational basis for such a distinction, it must amount to hostile discrimination and the notification must be struck down. But we are unable to reach that, conclusion because the reasons which have been stated in general terms by the Central Government in support of the validity of Section 10 are the reasons which render both the notifications valid and place them beyond challenge under Article 14. For the purpose of deciding whether the impugned notification is valid or not, it is necessary to read both the notifications together. The combined effect of the notification issued in 1937 and the notification issued in 1970 is to render offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. cognizable and non-bailable if it is committed within the Municipal limits of the City of Ahmedabad as specified in both these notifications. It cannot be gainsaid that Ahmedabad is a highly industrialized city and, therefore, it has been witnessing a large volume of industrial activities of varied character and nature. Ahmedabad is an important city of the State of Gujarat and it has been witnessing a very large volume of political activities as well. The industrial and political activities in the city of Ahmedabad are not comparable with any such activities in any other part of the State. Therefore, if the State Government has chosen the city of Ahmedabad with its peripheral areas for a special treatment in order to effectively control the law and order situation and the social life in the city, it cannot be said that the State Government has unduly discriminated against the residents of the city of Ahmedabad in this behalf. In our opinion, the combined effect of these two notifications is to draw a distinction between the city of Ahmedabad and the rest of the State of Gujarat in view of different problems which arise in the city and not to discriminate against the residents of the city. Therefore, we are unable to come to the conclusion that the impugned notifications suffer from any constitutional infirmity under Article 14. So far as the applicability of those notifications is concerned, we have already stated that the second notification applies to the area where the offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. was alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. That area - Patrakar Colony- is within the limits of Vadaj village which is now a part of the City of Ahmedabad. The last challenge which Mr. Pandit has raised, therefore, is without any substance and fails.