PUSHPA RAM THAPA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first contention canvassed before us is that the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, was not competent to pass the impugned order. The argument proceeds that the Notification issued by the State Government dated 31st July, 2009 appoints the Commissioner of Police as Executive Magistrate and, at best, as Additional District Magistrate. That is not enough. The power under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 can be exercised only by the District Magistrate.

(2.) ' The argument, though attractive at the first blush, will have to be stated to be rejected. We say so because the argument clearly overlooks the purport of Notification dated 31st July, 2009. It not only appoints the Commissioner of Police as Executive Magistrate, but also as Additional District Magistrate with power to discharge all the functions of the District Magistrate within the area of his jurisdiction, including of Sections 18 and 20 of the Act of 1956. This Notification has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Act of 1956 read with Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In other words, the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, has been authorised to discharge all functions of the District Magistrate within the area of his jurisdiction, in terms of the Notification dated 31st July, 2009. The validity of this Notification is not questioned before us. However, the argument is that the Commissioner of Police, being Additional District Magistrate, could not have exercised the powers of the District Magistrate, which is the quintessence for invoking action under Section18 of the Act of 1956. This argument not only overlooks the purport of Notification dated 31st July, 2009, but also the efficacy of Section 20(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that the State Government may appoint any Executive Magistrate to be Additional District Magistrate; and as the Magistrate shall have such of the powers of the District Magistrate under the Code or under any other law for the time being in force as may be directed by the State Government. In the present case, the Notification dated 31st July, 2009 specifically empowers the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, to exercise the powers of the District Magistrate, including for the purposes of Sections 18 and 20 of the Act of 1956. Understood thus, the submission canvassed before us is ill-advised.

(3.) ' Indeed, reliance was placed on sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Code to contend that the Commissioner of Police could not have been appointed as District Magistrate but, at best, as Executive Magistrate in relation to a metropolitan area. This argument clearly overlooks that sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Code is an enabling provision, and does not limit the sweep of sub-section (1), and in particular, sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Code. Even for this reason, the first argument deserves to be rejected.