TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court remands case on police punishment authority, upholds inquiry procedure and Bombay Police Manual</h1> <h3>State of Mysore Versus S.S. Makapur</h3> State of Mysore Versus S.S. Makapur - 1963 AIR 375, 1963 (2) SCR 943 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the inquiry procedure by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.2. Whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police had the authority to enhance the punishment in revision.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Inquiry Procedure by the Deputy Superintendent of PoliceThe respondent, a sub-inspector of police, was dismissed following an inquiry initiated on a complaint. The inquiry was conducted under Clause (8) of Section 545 of the Bombay Police Manual, which allows the officer conducting the inquiry to recall witnesses and read out their previous statements in the presence of the accused, providing an opportunity for cross-examination.The High Court of Mysore held that this procedure violated the principles of natural justice, as the evidence should be recorded in the presence of both the inquiring officer and the accused. They declared Section 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual invalid for contravening natural justice principles and set aside the dismissal order.The Supreme Court examined whether the procedure followed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was indeed opposed to the rules of natural justice. The Court reiterated that quasi-judicial bodies, unlike courts, are not bound by strict rules of evidence and can gather information from various sources, provided the accused is given a fair opportunity to respond.The Court referred to several precedents, including Union of India v. T.R. Verma (1958) and New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v. New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd. (1957), which clarified that the essence of natural justice is that the accused should know the evidence against them and have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court concluded that the procedure followed, where previous statements were read to witnesses, marked, and the accused was allowed to cross-examine, sufficiently complied with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the inquiry was not invalidated by the procedure adopted, and Section 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual was not contrary to natural justice.2. Authority of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to Enhance Punishment in RevisionThe Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not addressed whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police had the authority to enhance the punishment during the revision process. The respondent contended that the enhancement of punishment was beyond the Deputy Inspector General's powers.Given that this issue was not decided by the High Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further hearing on this and any other unresolved issues. The costs of the appeal were to be determined based on the outcome of the subsequent hearing in the lower court.ConclusionThe Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for further consideration on the authority of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to enhance the punishment and other unresolved issues. The procedure followed in the inquiry was deemed consistent with the principles of natural justice, and Section 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual was upheld.
TaxTMI 