Skip to content


Soli K. Shroff Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appln. No. 1278 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1956Bom207
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 344, 435, 439 and 561A; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 211; Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Sections 59; Contempt of Courts Act
AppellantSoli K. Shroff
RespondentState
Appellant AdvocateS.A. Mehta, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader
Excerpt:
it was adjudged that the high court has no jurisdiction to pass any orders under section 561a of the criminal procedure code, directing the stay of proceedings pending before the supridenetnet of police under the bombay police act, 1951,which have been commenced for holding a enquiry, whether an order for externment should be passed under that act - .....the superintendent of police in this case may be stayed.in our view, this court has no jurisdictionto pass any orders under section 561a, criminal p. c.directing stay of proceedings pending before asuperintendent of police under the bombaypolice act, which have been commenced forholding an enquiry whether an order of externment should be passed under that act. the ruleis, therefore discharged.rule discharged.
Judgment:

Shah, J.

1. This is all application filed by one Soli K. Shroff requesting that externment proceedings started under Section 59, Bombay Police Act, 22 of 1951 at the instance of Huzur Ahmed Khan, Superintendent of Police, C, I. D., Bombay City Police, be stayed till the final hearing and disposal of criminal cases Nos. 331/N/55 and 366/ N/55 filed by the petitioner against certain complainants (who have according to the case given false information as mentioned in the notice issued against the petitioner under Section 59, Bombay Police Act 22 of 1951) for offences under Section 211, I. P. C. and which are now pending before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay.

2. Evidently the proceedings are pending before the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, and the proceedings are taken for requiring the petitioner to show cause why an order under Section 59, Bombay Police Act should not be passed against him. The Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, is not a criminal Court nor is he subordinate to this Court.

This court has, therefore, no jurisdiction exercising powers under the Criminal Procedure Code to interfere with the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police. Reliance was sought to-be placed in support of the petition upon Section 561-A, Criminal P. C. by Mr. Mehta. Mr. Meiita contended that this Court had jurisdiction to pass orders staying the proceeding before the Superintendent of Police in order to secure the ends of justice even if no express authority in that behalf had been conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is true that under Section 561A, Criminal P. C. this Court has inherent jurisdiction and that jurisdiction is not limited by any thing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure if the exercise of that jurisdiction is necessary in order to give effect to orders made by this Court or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

But, in our judgment, we have no inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of authority by a Superintendent of Police who holds an enquiry under the Bombay City police Act for ascertaining whether an order for externment should be passed. Mr. Mehta contend-ed that an order similar to the order which is prayed for in this case was made in Criminal Appln. No. 838 of 1955 (Bom) (A) by this Court-Mr. Mehta, however, concedes that the Court has not in that case given any reasons in support of the order made.

We have the statement at the bar made by Mr. Mehta that the Court was of the view that such an order could be made whereas Mr. Mandgi, the Assistant Government Pleader who appeared in that case has made a statement that the order making the rule absolute was invited by him because in his view the original notice issued in that case under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act was a defective notice.

We have looked at the papers in Criminal Appln. No. 338 of 55 (Bom) (A), which was referred to by Mr. Mehta, and we find that originally a petition was filed in this Court requesting that proceedings be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act against the Superintendent who had initiated proceedings under the Bombay Police Act. Thereafter it appears that the petition was permitted to be amended and a prayer was made for stay of the externment proceedings pending against the petitioner, and rule was granted by the Court.

That rule was made absolute so as to stay the externment proceedings pending against the petitioner pending the disposal of Criminal Case No. 221 of 1955. There is no record of any judgment delivered by the Court. It does not appear also that the Court considered the question as to whether it has jurisdiction under Section 561A, Criminal P. C. to pass an order of the nature-prayed for in this case.

We cannot, therefore, hold that there is any considered decision of the Court which is binding upon us following which we will be justified in passing an order directing that the externment proceedings pending before the Superintendent of Police in this case may be stayed.

In our view, this court has no jurisdictionto pass any orders under Section 561A, Criminal P. C.directing stay of proceedings pending before aSuperintendent of Police under the BombayPolice Act, which have been commenced forholding an enquiry whether an order of externment should be passed under that Act. The ruleis, therefore discharged.Rule discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //