Section 503 · Paragraph 486. Absence of magisterial inquiry in case of offence under Section 7 of the Police Act against a police officer

When an offence alleged against a police officer is an offence only under Section 7 of the Act, no inquiry can be held by a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such cases, unless an inquiry is ordered by a Magistrate, the investigation shall be conducted under the direction of the Superintendent of Police in accordance with the following rules:
(i) Every information received by the police regarding the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer shall, in the first instance, be dealt with under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a case shall be registered under the appropriate section at the police station concerned in accordance with law:
Provided that:
(1) No case shall be registered by the police if the information is received for the first time by a Magistrate and forwarded to the police by the District Magistrate;
(2) If the information is received for the first time by the police, the report required by Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be forwarded to the District Magistrate; and while forwarding it, the Superintendent of Police shall record in his own hand the steps being taken in the investigation, or the reasons for not taking the same;
(3) Unless the Superintendent of Police has the power to investigate under Section 157(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Unless the application is rejected and ordered by the District Magistrate under Section 159 or unless the District Magistrate orders a magisterial inquiry under Section 159, the investigation shall be conducted by a police officer selected by the Superintendent of Police under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and superior to the officer charged.
(4) On the completion of the investigation and before the report required by Section 173A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is prepared, the question whether the officer charged should be produced for trial shall be decided by the Superintendent of Police, provided that before an officer for whose removal the consent of the Deputy Inspector General is required under paragraph 479 is produced for trial by the Superintendent of Police, the consent of the Deputy Inspector General must be obtained.
(5) The charge sheet or final report under section 173 or section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the case may be, shall be forwarded to the District Magistrate. If the Superintendent of Police or the Deputy Inspector General has decided against prosecution, a note of the reasons for such decision shall be endorsed on or appended to the final report by the Superintendent of Police.
(6) Where the reason for not instituting the prosecution is that the charge is believed to be baseless, no further action shall be necessary. If the charge is believed to be true, and the prosecution is not instituted because of insufficient evidence or for any other reason, when the final report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is accepted by the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police may take departmental action as prescribed in paragraph 490. (ii) When a non-cognizable offence (including an offence under section 29 of the Police Act) is reported to the police in the first stage by a police officer, the Superintendent of Police may, if he sees reason for taking action, either (a) take departmental action as specified in heading 3 of this paragraph and paragraph 490, or (b) in the alternative or at any stage of departmental proceedings, forward a report to the District Magistrate with a request to take cognizance under section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Provided that reports of non-cognizable offences by police officers (when made to the police and unless there are special reasons for the Magistrate under the Code to desire a formal police investigation) shall ordinarily be investigated departmentally and shall only, and not ordinarily, be referred to the District Magistrate until the departmental inquiry has been completed, unless criminal prosecution is desirable. and upon receipt of information either from the Superintendent of Police in the manner prescribed above or in the manner prescribed under Section 190 (1) (b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the District Magistrate may, subject to the general provisions of Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure -
(a) proceed under Chapter 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) order an inquiry by a Magistrate or an investigation by the police under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or an investigation by the police under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(c) prohibit further proceedings under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
If a police investigation is ordered, it shall be by an officer selected by the Superintendent of Police of a rank higher than the officer charged under Section 155 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and all further proceedings shall be the same as those prescribed in paragraphs 486 (1), (4), (5) and (6) above in respect of cognizable cases.
If no order is passed for investigation by the police and the District Magistrate prohibits further criminal proceedings in the case either before or after the inquiry by the Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police shall, in accordance with the principles laid down in paragraph 486-a (6) above and subject to the orders contained in paragraph 494, decide whether departmental proceedings are required under paragraph 490.
(iii) On information given to him or on his own knowledge or suspicion that any police officer subordinate to him has committed an offence under section 7 of the Police Act or any non-cognizable offence (including an offence under section 29 of the Police Act) which he considers unnecessary to forward to the District Magistrate in writing under rule 2 above, the Superintendent of Police may, if he sees reason for taking action, hold a departmental inquiry sufficient to test the truth of the charge or cause it to be held by an officer senior in rank to the officer charged. Upon completion of this inquiry, he will decide whether any further action is necessary and, if so, whether the accused officer should be subjected to a departmental trial or whether a reference should be made to the District Magistrate for taking cognizance under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Provided that before the Superintendent of Police transmits a reference to the District Magistrate for criminal proceedings against an Inspector or Sub-Inspector for an offence under Section 29 of the Police Act or a non-cognizable section of any law, the consent of the Deputy Inspector General must be obtained. Prosecution under Section 29 is infrequent and only when it cannot be properly dealt with under Section 7.
Note
(1) Meaning of inquiry - Inquiry does not always mean a judicial investigation. Its meaning depends on the context in which it is used. Subparagraph 3 of this paragraph does not oblige the Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry, complete with the trappings of a hearing, in the presence of the officer concerned, to determine whether an anonymous complaint against a subordinate is true before dismissing it. This procedure can, in many cases, harm the reputation of the subordinate concerned and cause harassment, as was found in Mohammad Umar v. Inspector General of Police. Therefore, the purpose of conducting an inquiry in such cases is merely to provide the Superintendent with personal satisfaction, which may help him decide whether the case should be dropped or whether further action should be taken, and if so, what action should be taken?
(2) Departmental action after a magisterial inquiry - Paragraph 486 does not apply to cases where departmental action is taken against a police officer after a magisterial inquiry. This situation falls within Paragraph 489(2). In State v. Ayodhya Prasad, in the above situation, the police received a further complaint or the CID conducted a further investigation, but the subject matter of the magistrate's inquiry and the departmental hearing were the same, and therefore, the question of the other inquiry being affected did not arise.
(3) Superintendent of Police's Discretion - The Superintendent of Police has discretion in such matters, but it is not so limitless as to conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution. If the Superintendent of Police does not conduct an investigation under Section 157(1)(b) of the CrPC, the District Magistrate can order it under Section 159 of the CrPC and can also order a magisterial inquiry. After the investigation is completed, before filing a report under Section 173 of the CrPC, the Superintendent of Police must decide whether to proceed to trial in court against the officer concerned. Before making a final decision at this stage, he must consult the Deputy Inspector General of Police, as his consent is required for dismissal. If the case against the police officer is not to be taken to court, they will send a report with the reasons to the District Magistrate. The final report under Section 173 will be approved by the District Magistrate. (In 1975, the government accepted the final report approved by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as legal, hence the final report is also approved by him.) Only after this approval is given, the question of taking departmental action is to be considered. In Mohammad Umar vs. Inspector General of Police, it was made clear that the Superintendent of Police will use his discretion to consider the nature of the charge, what evidence is there in support of it, to whom the police officer is subordinate, and what impact his decision will have on the honor and prestige of the department. (4) Investigations can also be stopped - The Supreme Court, while propounding the principle that if an investigation in which a crime is found to have been committed is stopped by the court through intervention, the crime will remain unpunished, which would be gravely detrimental to society and the very cause of justice would be undermined, expressed the view that this does not necessarily mean that an investigation must be sanctioned and that the court cannot stop it at the investigation stage. In State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, the Court, after considering all the relevant facts and being satisfied that no crime was apparent, intervened in the investigation, declaring the FIR and the ongoing investigation void under Article 226 and halting further investigation.
(5) The provisions of paragraph 486 are mandatory and their limits - The rule's sole purpose is not merely to require the Superintendent of Police to collect information, but also to protect the interests of the subordinate officer against whom the action is taken. When a provision provides for departmental action only after deliberation, such action without deliberation will be illegal because it would be contrary to this mandatory provision, and the order passed would also be illegal.
The Police Regulations are not administrative directives but are a complete set of rules that govern the appointment and removal of police officers. Therefore, the procedure must be consistent with the law and the rules. Rules made within the law should be interpreted as if they were part of the law and have the same effect as the law, unless they are inconsistent with the law.
Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly may enact laws regulating service restrictions, including those relating to disciplinary action, but they will not affect the powers of the President and Governor under Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution. They will also regulate the principle of fair opportunity and its limits, but this aspect will be subject to review by the court, as held in State v. Baburam Upadhyay.
Where there is no prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence by the officer, Section 7 will be sufficient to initiate departmental proceedings, and Chapter 12 of the CrPC will not be necessary, and the mandatory provisions of this paragraph will not apply, as clarified in 1963 ALJ 1036.
If a police officer is said to have committed an offence that is a cognizable offence, Paragraph 486(1) of the Police Regulations is attracted, and without complying with that provision, the Superintendent of Police cannot take action under sub-section (3), and such action will be void.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (2), a Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190 of the CrPC, because any rule contrary to law is invalid, even if it purports to be an administrative order for the guidance of officers.
(6) आदेश में कारण दिया जाना चाहिये- जिला मजिस्ट्रेट ने 161 दं०वि०/5 (2) पी०सी० एक्ट के मामले में विभागीय कार्यवाही करने का आदेश दिया मगर न्यायिक सुनवाई न होने के लिए कोई कारण नहीं दिया जिसे नंदनंदन स्वरूप बनाम मजिस्ट्रेट में पुलिस नियमों के अनुकूल नहीं माना और निर्देश दिया कि अधिकारी कानून के अनुसार कार्यवाही करें। अपने राज्य के विनियम में यह पुलिस अधीक्षक को निर्णय करना है और कारण देना है कि वाद न्यायालय में चले या कर्मचारी के विरुद्ध विभागीय कार्यवाही हो। जिला मजिस्ट्रेट को आदेश में विस्तृत कारण नहीं देना है पर आदेश से यह स्पष्ट होना चाहिये कि वह विवेकपूर्ण था।
(7) अंतिम रिपोर्ट स्वीकृत करने का अधिकारी- इसके प्रावधान आदेशात्मक हैं इसलिये अन्तिम रिपोर्ट को जिला मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा स्वीकार किये जाने के बाद ही पैरा 490 के अनुसार विभागीय कार्यवाही होनी चाहिये। विभागीय कार्यवाही से केवल दण्ड का अर्थ नहीं निकलता, और इसमें पुलिस विनियम की सभी कार्यवाहियाँ सम्मिलित हैं। 2 जिला मजिस्ट्रेट उन मजिस्ट्रेटों का प्रतिनिधित्व करते थे जिन्हें अपराध का प्रसंज्ञान लेने का अधिकार है। 1973 के जा०फौ० में मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट अपराध में प्रसंज्ञान लेने के अधिकारी हुए इसलिये अंतिम रिपोर्ट स्वीकार करने में भी वे ही सक्षम हैं। 490 पैरा के अन्तर्गत कार्यवाही करने के लिए शा०आ०सं० यू०ओ० 140/आठ-2, दिनांक 16-6-75 के आधार पर अब जिला मजिस्ट्रेट से पुनः अन्तिम रिपोर्ट पर स्वीकृति की आवश्यकता नहीं रही। विशेष जज भी धारा 161 द०वि० व 5 (2) पी०सी० एक्ट के अपराध में प्रसंज्ञान हेतु मजिस्ट्रेट ही हैं तथा उक्त शासनादेश के भावनानुसार उन्हें भी अन्तिम रिपोर्ट स्वीकार करने में सक्षम होना चाहिये।
(8) जब पुलिस अधीक्षक को शिकायत मिले- जब पुलिस अधीक्षक को ऐसी शिकायत प्राप्त हो कि उनके अधीनस्थ ने जनता के आधिकारिक सम्बन्धों के सिलसिले में कोई अपराध किया है तो वे जिला मजिस्ट्रेट को इस निर्णय हेतु सूचित करेंगे कि उसमें पुलिस द्वारा विवेचना हो अथवा मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा, यदि जिला मजिस्ट्रेट वैसा आदेश नहीं करते तो उसमें विभागीय निस्तारण, कारण दिये जाने के बाद किया जायेगा, मगर जहाँ वाद को न्यायालय भेजना हो, राज्य बनाम चरन सिंह में आया है कि जिला मजिस्ट्रेट के स्वीकृति की आवश्यकता नहीं होगी।
(9) प्रावधान स्वीकृति के स्वरूप का नहीं- अभियुक्त को न्यायालय से मुक्ति इस कारण से नहीं मिलेगी कि वाद में इस पैरा के प्रावधान का (जो पंजाब विनियम के पैरा 16.38 के समान है) पालन नहीं हुआ। ये नियम विभागीय कार्यवाही की प्रक्रिया से सम्बन्धित हैं और वाद के न्यायालय जाने के पहले इसमें दिये शर्तों के पालन की बाध्यता नहीं है। ये केवल विभागीय अनुदेश हैं जिनका अर्थ यह नहीं कि वे किसी स्वीकृति या अनुज्ञा के रूप में, वाद के न्यायालय जाने के लिये हैं, न वे जा०फौ० के प्रावधानों का अतिक्रमण कर सकते हैं जैसा कि राज्य बनाम चरण सिंह में निर्णीत है। इस नियम की भाषा विभागीय कार्यवाही तक सीमित है और यह केवल विभागीय कार्यवाही व दण्ड को नियन्त्रित करने की प्रक्रिया है जैसा कि बलिराम बनाम राज्य में आया है।
(10) संशोधन की आवश्यकता- न्यायपालिका का कार्यपालिका से अलग हो जाने के बाद जिला मजिस्ट्रेट का हस्तक्षेत्रीय अपराध में प्रसंज्ञान लेने व सुनवाई करने का अधिकार मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट में निहित कर दिया गया और कार्यपालिका के अधिकार उनमें ही स्थित हैं। ये प्रावधान उस समय के हैं जब जिला मजिस्ट्रेट जिला के न्यायपालिका के फौजदारी कक्ष के वादों के प्रधान थे। इस पैरा के प्रावधान में जिला मजिस्ट्रेट के अधिशासी व न्यायिक दोनों अधिकारों के प्रयोग की व्यवस्था है, मगर न्यायपालिका के अलगाव के बाद इसमें तद्रुप संशोधन की आवश्यकता प्रतीत होती है।