2003 (12) TMI 679 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commandant to record conviction and impose sentence.
2. Applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.
3. Nature of offences under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.
4. Appropriate sentence for the convicted respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commandant to Record Conviction and Impose Sentence:
The Sessions Judge and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the Assistant Commandant lacked jurisdiction to record conviction and impose sentence under Section 10(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (the 'Act'). They reasoned that the Assistant Commandant could not exercise powers of a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class without the High Court's conferment of such powers, especially after the separation of judiciary from the Executive in 1973. However, the Supreme Court noted that Section 16(2) of the Act allows the Central Government to invest the Commandant or Assistant Commandant with magisterial powers for trying offences under the Act, overriding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the 'Code'). This provision was overlooked by the lower courts, leading to their erroneous conclusions.

2. Applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Act is a special law with its own set of offences and punishments, distinct from ordinary criminal law. Section 4(2) of the Code permits actions under any law other than the Indian Penal Code, while Section 5 of the Code saves special laws from being overridden by the Code. The Act's provisions, including Section 16(2), specifically empower certain authorities within the CRPF to exercise magisterial powers, thus making the Assistant Commandant's actions valid under the Act.

3. Nature of Offences under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949:
The Act creates new classes of offences specific to the disciplined forces, such as unauthorized absence, which are not offences under ordinary criminal law. Sections 9 and 10 of the Act categorize these as 'more heinous' and 'less heinous' offences, respectively. The Supreme Court noted that the Assistant Commandant acted within his jurisdiction to try and convict the respondent for unauthorized absence, a 'less heinous' offence under Section 10(m) of the Act.

4. Appropriate Sentence for the Convicted Respondent:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the necessity of stringent punishment for acts of indiscipline in disciplined forces like the CRPF. Although the Assistant Commandant sentenced the respondent to three months' imprisonment, the Supreme Court modified the sentence to a fine equivalent to two months' pay, considering it sufficient to meet the ends of justice. This alteration was not to diminish the gravity of the offence but to balance deterrence and fairness.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Assistant Commandant had the jurisdiction to try and convict the respondent under the Act, and the provisions of the Act took precedence over the general provisions of the Code. The Assistant Commandant's exercise of magisterial powers was lawful, and the respondent's conviction was upheld. However, the sentence was modified to a fine of two months' pay, reflecting a balanced approach to discipline and justice. The appeal was allowed to the extent of altering the punishment.