1980 (3) TMI 270 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Legality of criminal proceedings based on the cognizability of the offenses.
3. Interpretation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 regarding cognizability and bailability of offenses.
4. Validity of the notification issued under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.
5. Request for quashing proceedings based on lack of prima facie case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him under Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, contending that these offenses are not cognizable. The petitioner also raised some allegations concerning Judicial Officers, which were deemed irrelevant to the main issue.

Issue 2: Legality of criminal proceedings based on the cognizability of the offenses
The Delhi administration, in response, stated that the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced for contempt of court based on a complaint filed by a Judicial Officer. The criminal proceedings under Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code were initiated as a result of this complaint, leading to the arrest of the petitioner. The administration argued that the offense under Section 506 is cognizable, and therefore, the proceedings were valid.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 regarding cognizability and bailability of offenses
The counsel for the Delhi Administration referred to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, which empowers the State Government to declare certain offenses as cognizable and non-bailable. The Act allows the State Government to specify offenses under Sections 188 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as non-bailable and cognizable in a particular area through a notification.

Issue 4: Validity of the notification issued under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932
A notification was issued in 1933 declaring offenses under Sections 186, 188, 189, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as cognizable and offenses under Sections 188 and 506 as non-bailable in the Delhi Province. The Court affirmed that the offenses charged against the petitioner were cognizable and non-bailable in the Union Territory of Delhi, as per the notification issued under the Amendment Act, 1932.

Issue 5: Request for quashing proceedings based on lack of prima facie case
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings citing the absence of a prima facie case despite several prosecution witnesses being examined. However, the Court noted that no grounds were raised in the Writ Petition regarding the lack of a prima facie case. As such, the Court declined to address this point and dismissed the Writ Petition based on its conclusions regarding the cognizability and bailability of the offenses charged against the petitioner.