Harmonious interpretation of magistrate appointment powers supports Commissioner of Police's exercise of district magistrate functions.

The statutory scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure permits appointment of Executive Magistrates in metropolitan areas and preserves a special power to confer Executive Magistrate functions on a Commissioner of Police. Read together, these provisions support a further appointment as Additional District Magistrate with the powers of a District Magistrate where the governing law so requires. A restrictive interpretation that excludes the Commissioner of Police from this channel of appointment is rejected as inconsistent with the legislative object of effectively enforcing the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The notification is therefore treated as valid in substance for conferring the required magisterial powers.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government could validly confer on the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Bombay, the powers of a District Magistrate for the purposes of Sections 18 and 20 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 by issuing the notification dated 1.10.1999 under Section 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 20(1) authorises appointment of Executive Magistrates in every district and metropolitan area, and Section 20(2) permits appointment of an Executive Magistrate as an Additional District Magistrate with the powers of a District Magistrate as directed by the State Government. Section 20(5) specifically preserves the State Government's power to confer on a Commissioner of Police, in relation to a metropolitan area, all or any of the powers of an Executive Magistrate. Reading these provisions together, the Court held that the Commissioner of Police could be appointed as an Executive Magistrate in a metropolitan area and, once so appointed, could also be appointed as an Additional District Magistrate for the purposes of the Act. The Court rejected the narrower construction that would exclude the Commissioner of Police from such appointment and held that a construction defeating the legislative object of suppressing immoral traffic should be avoided.

Conclusion: The notification was valid in substance, and the State Government could appoint the Commissioner of Police as an Executive Magistrate and then as an Additional District Magistrate to exercise powers of a District Magistrate under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the notification failed, the impugned judgment was not sustained, and the matter was allowed only to the extent that the State was directed to make the necessary appointment and restore the proceedings from the stage reached earlier.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme permits appointment of Executive Magistrates in a metropolitan area and also preserves a special power to confer Executive Magistrate functions on a Commissioner of Police, the provisions must be read harmoniously to allow such appointment and the consequential exercise of District Magistrate powers where the legislative object so requires.

---