STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State of Punjab raises a short but very important question of law. Piara Singh accused was sent up to stand his trial in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Tarn Taran, as a result of investigation conducted by the S.H.O. of the police station, Sirhali. The said S.H.O. got information on 12th August, 1972 that in village Gharka. Piara Singh was engaged in illicit distillation. Accordingly, a raid was organised and Piara Singh was arrested red handed while he was busy in the process of distillation. Forty Kilograms of Lahan was also recovered along with other articles. The necessary note of memo was written and after the investigation was complete, the said S.H.O., Sirhali sent up the case to the Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran. Obviously, the said Magistrate took cognizance of the case upon a police report under Section 190(1)(b) of the then Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter the preliminary statement of the accused was recorded and a charge under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, was framed against him. The prosecution adduced evidence and after the closure of the case on behalf of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code was recorded. In neither of the two statements, the accused took up the plea that the S.H.O. Sirhali had no territorial jurisdiction to effect the recovery or to cause the arrest of the accused for that particular spot where the distillation was going on. One of the defence witnesses too indicated that the particular spot from where the recovery was made fell beyond the River Beas and that presumably the said area did not fall within the jurisdiction of police station, Sirhali. Before the Magistrate an argument was founded on the basis of Section 156(1) of the Code that the officer incharge of the police station could not investigate this offence as he had no jurisdiction over the local area from where the recovery was made or the arrest was effected. This plea prevailed before the learned Magistrate and he recorded a finding of acquittal. Against that finding the State had preferred the present appeal.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate has obviously applied Sub -section (1) of Section 156 of the Code. The said section can profitably be extracted as below:

(3.) IT is manifest that the plea as to the jurisdiction of the investigation officer was not taken by the accused at an earlier stage. He gave his preliminary statement before the Magistrate and subsequently when the prosecution case was over, he gave his statement under Section 342 of the Code. In neither of them he questioned the vires of the investigation. In such a situation the question before us would be as to whether Sub -section (2) of Section 156 would afford a protection to the trial and to subsequent [decision by the Magistrate. In that connection, the learned Counsel relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud and Anr. v. State of Delhi : A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 196. The following extract from the decision would be very pertinent to the question before us.