R. P. KAPUR V. S. P. SINGH AIR 1961

Case Name: R. P. Kapur and Others vs Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and Others

Citations: 1961 AIR 1117, 1961 SCR (2) 143

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Bench: Das, S.K. Hidayatullah, M. Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C. Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala

Date of Judgment:  28^th October 1960

Parties Involved:

Appellant:  R. P. Kapur and Others
Respondent: Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and Others

Legal Provision Related to the Case: Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Section 154, 156, 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Facts of the Case:

• The petitioner R. P. Kapur, a Commissioner of Police in the State of Punjab has filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of their rights under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which rights they say have been violated by the respondents who are the State of Punjab, Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister thereof, and certain officials, police, administrative and magisterial who have been conducting, or are connected with, the investigation or inquiry into a number of criminal cases instituted against the petitioner.
• It is alleged that the Chief Minister was annoyed with petitioner, because the he did not show his willingness to give evidence for the prosecution in a case known as the Karnal Murder Case in which one D. S. Grewal, then Superintendent of Police, Karnal, and some other police officials were, along with others, accused of some serious offences. That case was transferred by this Court to a Special Judge, at Delhi. Petitioner was at the time Com- missioner of Ambala, and he alleges that he was told by the Chief Minister that it would be in the fitness of things that petitioner should also figure as a prosecution witness. To this suggestion petitioner gave a somewhat dubious reply to the effect that his appearance as a prosecution witness might or might not help the prosecution.
• Another reason for the displeasure of the Chief Minister was related to certain orders which petitioner had passed as Commissioner, Patiala Division, in a revenue case known as the Sangrur case. In that case the petitioner passed certain orders, involving the disposal of properties worth about Rs. 9 lacs, which were adverse to one Surinder Kairon, son of the Chief Minister. It is stated that as a result of the two reasons mentioned above, a special procedure was adopted in the investigation of the criminal cases instituted against the petitioner; and some new cases were started through the instrumentality of the C. 1. D. Police with a view to subject the petitioners to harassment and persecution.
• The petitioner in the petition stated that there has been a deliberate departure from the normal and legal procedure in the matter of institution and investigation of criminal cases against the petitioner, a departure said to be the result of ” an evil eye and unequal hand ” which the petitioners allege constitutes a denial of the right of equal protection of the laws guaranteed to them under Article 14 of the Constitution. The special procedure or technique of which the petitioners complain is said to consist of, several items, such as (1) entertainment of a criminal complaint personally by the Chief Minister; (2) institution of complaints by the C. 1. D. police; (3) registration of first information after such complaints; (4) investigations in advance of the complaints; (5) investigation by specially chosen (hand- picked as learned Counsel for the petitioners has suggested) C.I.D. officials, not necessarily of high rank, who have no power to investigate; (6) the arrangement of a special C.I.D. squad to “unearth something ” against the petitioners, etc.

Issues raised before the Court:

 (1) Whether in the institution and investigation of these cases a special procedure unknown to law has been adopted?

 (2) Whether the petitioner has been singled out for unequal treatment in administering the law relating to the institution and investigation of criminal cases in the State?

Arguments of the Petitioner:

• The petitioner contended the reason of his incurring the displeasure if the Chief Minister has reference with two cases. In the first case i.e. is Grewal’s case in May-June 1959, the petitioner was asked to give evidence for the prosecution, which he gave a dubious reply which displeased the Chief Minister. And in the second case i.e. the Sanguru’s case in July 1959, the petitioner passed certain orders, involving the disposal of properties worth about Rs. 9 lacs, which were adverse to one Surinder Kairon, son of the Chief Minister.
• Meanwhile, another two cases were filed against the petitioner. The Sethi’s case in December 1958 and Dhingra’s case in February 1959. On May 28, 1959, the petitioner wrote to the Chief Secretary about Sethi’s case and Dhingra’s case. The petitioner wanted that an opportunity should be given to him to explain his position. On June 9, 1959, petitioner again wrote to the Chief Secretary about the complaints of Sethi and Dhingra but no allegation against the Chief Minister. On June 29, 1959, petitioner filed two petitions in the Punjab High Court for quashing the proceedings in Sethi’s case and Dhingra’s case and in this petition an allegation was made that powerful influences were operating against the petitioner “to harm him and debar him officially” and Sethi’s case and Dhingra’s case were the result of such influences.
• The petitioner further argued that in Sethi’s case the complaint against the petitioner was made to the Additional Inspector General of Police. The Additional Inspector General of Police then passed an order to the following effect: “Register a case and investigate personally “. This was addressed to Sardar Hardayal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Thereupon Sardar Hardayal Singh, D.S.P. Amritsar, appears to have drawn up a first information report. The allegation of the petitioners was that the original complaint had been sent to the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister had passed certain orders thereon. It was also contended that the provisions of Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the Code have been violated in the case against the petitioners; and thus the petitioners have been subjected to a special procedure unknown to law or, at any rate, to unequal treatment, treatment different from that of other persons against whom information of a cognizable offence are made.

Arguments of the Respondent:

• The respondent counsel has contended that the procedure adopted against the petitioner was warranted by law and the employment of the C. 1. D. Officials in the investigation of the cases against the petitioners were due to the special nature of the cases. The respondents have also contested the correctness of the allegation that petitioner had incurred the displeasure of the Chief Minister on account of the two reasons stated in the petition. The Chief Minister has himself made no affidavit in respect of the allegations made against him; but affidavits in reply have been made by the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary to the Punjab Government and some of the respondent officials.
• The respondent also argued that there has been no violation of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21, and there are no grounds for interference by this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
• It has been stated on behalf of the respondents that in the two cases called Sethi’s case and Dhingra’s case, the petitioners had moved the High Court without success for quashing the proceedings and in Sethi’s case, an appeal to this Court against the order of the High Court also proved unsuccessful. It is also pointed out that a petition made by petitioner in the High Court for proceeding by way of contempt of court against the Chief Minister on some of the allegations now raised or allegations similar in nature, was dismissed in limine .
• The respondent pointed out an important provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 551 which is as follows:

“Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station.”

• The Additional Inspector General of Police to whom Sethi’s complaint was sent was, without doubt, a police officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station. Sardar Hardayal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Amritsar, was also an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station. Both these officers could, therefore, exercise the powers, throughout the local area to which they were appointed, as might be exercised by an officer in charge of a police station within the limits of his police station. It is not disputed that the jurisdictional area of the Additional Inspector General of Police was the whole of the State. As to the jurisdictional area of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., the contention on behalf of the respondent State is that though he was posted at Amritsar, his jurisdictional area extended over the whole State.
• The respondent further mentioned the Police Rule 21.28 in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Vol. III, issued by and with the authority of the State Government under sections 7 and 12 of the Police Act (V of 1861). That rule lays down that the Criminal Investigation Department has no separate jurisdiction and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, may decide to take over the control of any particular investigation himself or depute one or more of his officers to work directly under the control of the Superintendent of Police of the district.

Judgment:

• The honorable Supreme Court held that serious allegations have been made against the Chief Minister in this case. He was a party respondent and had notice of the allegations made. In Sethi’s complaint it was alleged that he had passed certain orders on the original complaint, which was sent to the Additional Inspector General of Police with those orders. The original complaint was not made available to the Court on the ground that it could not be traced. The Additional Inspector General of Police said in his affidavit that on receiving the complaint from Sri M. L. Sethi, he ordered the investigation of the case without any order or direction from the Chief Minister. He did not specifically say if he received the complaint direct from Sethi or through the Chief Minister. In Dhingra’s case the Chief Minister passed an order which might either mean that he ordered the submission of a prima facie report or merely directed that a report should be submitted if a prima facie case was made out. These are all matters on which the Chief Minister alone was in a position to enlighten the Court. In view of the allegations made against him, the Court considered that the Chief Minister owed a duty to this Court to file an affidavit stating what the correct position was so far as he remembered it. 
• So far as the petitioner contended that the provisions of Section 154, 156 and 157 of the Code have been violated in the case against the petitioner; and thus the petitioner has been subjected to a special procedure unknown to law or, at any rate, to unequal treatment, treatment different from that of other persons against whom information of a cognizable offence are made, the Court held these contentions as incorrect.
• The honorable Court pointed out correctly that section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not say that information of a cognizable offence can only be made to an officer in charge of a police station. That section merely lays down, inter alia, that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in that behalf. Section 156 gives power to an officer in charge of a police station to investigate without the order of a Magistrate any cognizable case which a Court, having jurisdiction in the local area etc. would have power to inquire into or try; Section 156(2) lays down that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
• The Court also mentioned that it is indeed true that the investigation of these cases has been entrusted to certain officers of the Criminal Investigation Department, whether for good or bad reasons that cannot be said. But that circumstance does not by itself make the investigation bad in law. The officers can exercise their powers of investigation under Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The Supreme Court concluded that the petitioners are not entitled to succeed and the writ petition must be dismissed, in the circumstances of this case there will be no order for costs.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court has rightfully dealt with the issues of this case. However, it can be said that the judgment was not essentially a fair deal as the petitioner suffered a sense of grievance. Regarding this fact the Court has said that “We have held that there is no legal justification for that grievance; but in an executive as well as judicial administration justice must not only be done but it must appear that justice is being done. An affidavit from the Chief Minister would have cleared much of the doubt which in the absence of such an affidavit arose in this case.”

References:

1. R.P. Kapur And Others vs Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon And … on 28 October, 1960, Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/796217/ last seen on 30/04/23

written by Megha Malakar intern under legal vidhiya