In a recent judgment deliver by the Supreme Court of India ( State of Kerela vs. P. B. Sourabhan and Others, the Apex Court has held that there is no conflict between Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 18 of the Police Act and that in his wisdom, the State Police Chief can appoint any superior officer who, in his opinion, would be competent and fit to investigate a particular case keeping in view the circumstances thereof.
36. Powers of superior officers of police:
Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may he exercised by such officer within the limits of his station.
18. State Police Chief:
(1) The administration, supervision, direction and control of the Police throughout the State shall, subject to the control of the Government, be vested in an officer designated as the State Police Chief.
Section 36 empowers police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a Police Station to exercise the same powers as that of an officer in charge of a police station insofar as the territorial/local area within the jurisdiction of such superior police officers is concerned. Section 18(1) of the State Police Act, on the other hand, vests the administration, supervision, direction and control of the police throughout the State in the State Police Chief. The power Under Section 36, on a plain reading thereof, is to be exercised by the District Police Chief who, by virtue of the said section, is empowered to appoint an officer above the rank of an officer in charge of a police station to exercise the same powers as may be exercised by an officer in charge of the police station. This is, however, subject to the condition that such superior officer would be competent to exercise powers within the territorial/local limits of his jurisdiction. There is no reason as to how Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure., in any way, can debar the exercise of powers by the State Police Chief to appoint any superior officer who, in his opinion, would be competent and fit to investigate a particular case keeping in view the circumstances thereof. Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure does not fetter the jurisdiction of the State Police Chief to pass such an order based on his satisfaction. It is the satisfaction of the State Police Chief, in the light of the facts of a given case, that would be determinative of the appointment to be made in which situation the limits of jurisdiction will not act as fetter or come in the way of exercise of such jurisdiction by the superior officer so appointed. Such an appointment would not be hedged by the limitations imposed by Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 18 of the State Police Act, on the other hand, does not confer any such power and merely recognises the State Police Chief as the head of the police force in the State.
The Apex Court noticed that the High Court was not right in reading the constraints imposed by Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. on the powers of the State Police Chief to appoint a suitable and competent officer to investigate a case irrespective of the limits of local jurisdiction of such officer, if such a course of action is required. This is not to say that the power of the State Police Chief would not be amenable to the judicial process; it can always be subjected to challenge on grounds of malafide or as being without justification and reasonable cause.
In view of the above submissions, the Apex Court eventually quashed the impugned order passed by the High Court.
