ASHOK KUMAR KIRTIWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is aptly said : "A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases" Lord Denning.

(2.) We are also required to iron out some such creases which have surfaced on account of two single Bench conflicting decisions of this Court in S. G. Pathak v. State of M.P. 1995 Jab LJ 225 and Harmahendra Singh v. State of M. P. (Cri. Appeal No. 865/96) decided on 12-5-2000 as to the interpretation of S. 3 of the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 (for short, 'the M.P. Act of 1947'). On reference being made by one of us (Jain, J.) these matters have been placed by the Order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, before us to answer the question extracted below :

(3.) In S. G. Pathak (1995 Jab LJ 225) (supra), Hon'ble Prasad, J. sitting at Indore, on consideration of the provisions of the M.P. Act of 1947 with particular reference to the M.P. Lok-Ayukta Evam Up-Lokayukta Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short, "The M.P. Act of 1981"), held :