2006 (7) TMI 660 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Notification dated 1.10.1999 issued by the State of Maharashtra empowering the Commissioner of Police Brihan Bombay the powers of District Magistrate for the purposes of Sections 18 and 20 of the Act has been validly made?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification dated 1.10.1999 issued by the State of Maharashtra.
2. Powers of the Commissioner of Police under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
3. Interpretation of Section 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notification dated 1.10.1999 issued by the State of Maharashtra:
The central issue in these appeals is whether the Notification dated 1.10.1999, empowering the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Bombay, with the powers of a District Magistrate for the purposes of Sections 18 and 20 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, was validly issued. The High Court quashed this Notification, declaring it ab initio bad in law, arguing that the Commissioner of Police could not assume the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate under the said sections. The Supreme Court, however, held that the State Government has the power to appoint the Commissioner of Police as an Executive Magistrate and further as an Additional District Magistrate, who shall have the powers of a District Magistrate for the purposes of Sections 18 and 20 of the Act. The Notification was thus deemed valid, provided the Commissioner of Police is first appointed as an Executive Magistrate.

2. Powers of the Commissioner of Police under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956:
The Notification aimed to address the alarming rise in trafficking of minor girls and women in Bombay by conferring powers on the Commissioner of Police to act as a District Magistrate. This included the authority to order evictions or closures of brothels as preventive measures. The High Court had set aside the eviction order dated 28.6.2004, passed by the Commissioner of Police, on the grounds that the Commissioner was not empowered to act as a District Magistrate. The Supreme Court clarified that once the Commissioner of Police is appointed as an Executive Magistrate and then as an Additional District Magistrate, he could legitimately exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under the Act.

3. Interpretation of Section 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The Supreme Court examined Section 20 of the Code, which consists of three parts:
- Sub-section (1) allows the State Government to appoint as many persons as it thinks fit to be Executive Magistrates and to appoint one of them as the District Magistrate.
- Sub-section (2) permits the appointment of any Executive Magistrate as an Additional District Magistrate with powers of a District Magistrate.
- Sub-section (5) allows the State Government to confer on the Commissioner of Police all or any of the powers of an Executive Magistrate in a metropolitan area.

The High Court had interpreted that the Commissioner of Police could not be appointed as an Executive Magistrate under sub-sections (1) and (2) but only under sub-section (5). The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the State Government could indeed appoint the Commissioner of Police as an Executive Magistrate and subsequently as an Additional District Magistrate, thereby allowing him to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate. The Court emphasized a harmonious construction of the statute, avoiding a narrow and pedantic interpretation that would render the legislation ineffective.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, directing the State Government to appoint the Commissioner of Police as an Executive Magistrate and then as an Additional District Magistrate with the powers of a District Magistrate for the purposes of Sections 18 and 20 of the Act. The status quo as of 28.6.2004 was to be maintained until such appointments were made. The necessary orders for these appointments were to be issued within a month from the receipt of the Court's order.