iminal Appeal No 57 of 1957 and Criminal Misc
Petition No 294 of 1957
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 28 1956 of the former Andhra High Court at Guntur in Criminal Revision Case No 241 of 1956
398 T V Sarma K Ramaseshayya Chaudhury and T section Venkataraman for the appellants
T V R Tatachari and T M Sen for the respondent
C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India and T M Sen for the Intervener Union of India
September 17
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J
The only question that arises for determination in this appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad under article 1341c of the Constitution is the constitutionality of the provisions of sections 207 and 207A Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code which read together were introduced into the Code by Act XXVI of 1955
The 26 appellants have been committed to the Court of Session Guntur Division to take their trial for offences punishable under sections 147 148 323 324 and 302 read with sections 34 and 149 Indian Penal Code
They impleaded the State of Andhra Pradesh as the sole respondent
The Union of India has been allowed to intervene on an application made in that behalf in view of the fact that the provisions of the Central Act have been impugned as unconstitutional
For the purposes of this appeal it is only necessary to state the following relevant facts
The local police took cognizance of a serious occurrence of rioting with murder on December 22 1955
The local police investigated the case and after recording such evidence as it could collect in respect of the occurrence submitted a charge sheet under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code to the magistrate having jurisdiction to entertain the case
The magistrate following the procedure laid down in section 207 A of the Code committed the persons shown in the chargesheet as the accused persons to take their trial before the Court of Session
A number of applications in revision under sections 435 and 439 of the Code were made on behalf of the accused persons to the High Court of 399 Andhra Pradesh to quash the order of commitment chiefly on the ground that the said order having been passed under the provisions of section 207A of the Code was void as those provisions were unconstitutional for the reason that they introduced discrimination as against accused persons in respect of whom a police charge sheet had been submitted
The revisional applications were heard by Krishna Rao J who dismissed them holding that the provisions impugned were not unconstitutional and that therefore the order of commitment was valid in law
The appellants applied for and obtained the necessary certificate under article 1341c of the Constitution that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court
The arguments addressed to the High Court have been repeated in this Court and are to the effect that sections 207 and 207A as they now stand provide for two separate procedures in the committing court namely 1 in respect of a case instituted on a police report for which the procedure specified in section 207 A is prescribed and 2 in respect of any other proceeding the procedure laid down in other provisions of Chapter XV111 is prescribed
The argument is that a comparison and contrast of the two different procedures prescribed in respect of the two classes of cases when examined in their details show that the procedure in respect of a case instituted on a police report is less advantageous to the accused than the other procedure
Thus it is further argued in the sections following section 207A in Chapter XVIII of the Code the accused have been granted facilities which are not available to them in the procedure laid down in section 207A
By way of illustration it was urged that under section 2083 it is open to an accused person to apply to the magistrate to issue process to compel the attendance of any witness or the production of any document but sub section
2 of section 207A which corresponds to the provisions of section 2083 speaks only of the prosecution and not of the accused
Again it is pointed out that sub section
4 of section 207A makes reference only to the prosecution evidence whereas the corresponding section 2081 makes reference to the evidence that may be produced in 200 support of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused
Similarly it has been pointed out that there are no provisions in section 207A corresponding to those of section 2092 and section 2132 empowering the magistrate to discharge the accused nor is there any provision in the impugned section 207A corresponding to section 215 relating to quashing of commitments
Further it was pointed out that whereas section 2091 contains the words  not sufficient grounds for committing the accused person sub section
6 of section 207A has the words  no grounds for committing the accused
It has further been argued that in the new procedure adopted in the impugned section 207A the accused person has been deprived of the benefits under sections 162 and 215 of the Code and under sections 27 101 to 106 and 114 1ll
g of the Evidence Act
It has thus been sought to be made out that the procedure laid down in section 207A in the matter of commitment is less advantageous to the accused persons than the one prescribed in the succeeding sections of Chapter XVIII
We shall assume for the purpose of examining the constitutionality of the impugned provisions of the amended Code that there are differences in the two kinds of procedure envisaged in Chapter XVIII of the Code relating to commitment proceedings but it is by no means clear that the changes introduced by the amending Act XXVI of 1955 are always to the disadvantage or prejudice of an accused person
It is a well known fact that the amending Act aforesaid introduced changes into the old Code with a view to simplifying and expediting procedure relating to trial of offences and to inquiries preceding such trials
It has also to be remembered that the Code has always prescribed different procedures for trial of offences varying with the gravity of the offences charged or with the power of the court before which an accused person is placed on trial
Generally speaking minor offences have been made triable summarily or the same accused person in respect of an offence triable summarily may be so tried by a magistrate specially empowered in that behalf or may be tried according to the ordinary procedure by a magistrate not so 401 empowered
Less serious offences are triable by magistrates and more serious offences are triable by a Court of Session or by a High Court after there has been a preliminary in quiry and investigation by a police officer or an inquiry by a magistrate commonly described as commitment proceed ings or after inquiry by a Civil or Revenue Court in connection with certain specified offences committed in the course of or in relation to judicial proceedings or in  respect of proceedings affecting the administration of justice
The Code has further classified offences triable by magistrates of any class or by magistrates of higher classes
There is again a cross division of cases into warrant cases and summons cases
With reference to the powers of police officers offences have been classified as cognizable offences and non cognizable offences
Thus the principle of classification of offences and of different categories of cases relating to the trial of offences is a well establisbed rule of criminal procedure
It is true that for the first time the impugned sections have pre scribed two different procedures in respect of commitment proceedings as already indicated but we have to remember that there is absolutely no difference in the procedure at the trial in contra distinction to the procedure relating to the enquiry leading up to commitment of an accused person to a Court of Session or a High Court in cases triable exclu sively by such a Court
It must also be remembered that every case involving a serious offence comes under the category of cognizable case  in respect of which a police officer may arrest a person named as an accused person without warrant and investigate the case without any order of a magistrate in that behalf Hence ordinarily speaking as soon as information of the commission of a cognizable offence has been laid before a police officer in charge of a police station it becomes his duty to record the first information and even in the absence of such a first infor mation if such an officer receives information reading to a suspicion that a cognizable offence has been committed he has to investigate the case and take all steps necessary for the apprehension and 402 arrest of the persons alleged to have been concerned with the crime
Even in cases which are not in the first in stance of cognizable nature it becomes the duty of a police officer to investigate such a case if he is so or dered by a competent magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under section 190 of the Code
In all such cases it becomes the duty of a police officer in charge of a police station or of a superior officer if deputed to investigate a case to follow the procedure laid down in
Chapter XIV of the Code
Under section 169 of the Code if as a result of the investigation under Chapter XIV the police officer making the investigation comes to the conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a magistrate he has to release the accused person if in custody
If on the other hand on such an investigation it appears to the investigating officer that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion it becomes his duty to forward the accused to a competent magistrate to try the accused or to commit him for trial
Section 173 of the Code requires the investigation to be concluded without any unnecessary delay and the submission of a report containing the result of the investigation to a competent magistrate
After the submission of the police report the police offi cer in charge of a police station before the commencement of the inquiry or trial by a magistrate has to furnish to the accused free of cost a copy of the report aforesaid of the first information report and of all other documents or relevant extracts thereof on which prosecution proposes to rely including statements and confessions if any recorded under section 164 and the statements recorded under sub section
3 of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses
On receipt of the police report and the documents aforesaid under section 173 of the Code the magistrate concerned has to make up his mind whether the case has to be tried by him or by some other competent magistrate or by a Court of Session or a High Court
If the magistrate finds that the case is triable exclusively by a Court of Session or a High Court he has 403 to follow the new procedure laid down in section 207A At the commencement of the inquiry before the magistrate when the accused appears before him the magistrate has to satisfy himself that the documents referred to in section 173 have been furnished to the accused and to have them furnished if the police officer has not done his duty
The magistrate then has to record the evidence of such witnesses as figure as eyewitnesses to the occurrence and are produced before him He has also the power in the interest of justice to record such other evidence of the prosecution as he may think necessary but he is not obliged to record any evi dence
Without recording any evidence but after considering all the documents referred to in section 173 and after examining the accused person and after hearing the parties it is open to the magistrate to discharge the accused person after recording his reasons that no ground for committing the accused for trial has been made out unless he decides to try the accused himself or to send him for trial by another magistrate
If on the other hand he finds that the ac cused should be committed for trial he is required to frame a charge disclosing the offence with which the accused is charged
The accused is then required to submit a list of persons whom he wishes to be summoned to give evidence at his trial
After all this the case is placed before the Court of Session or the High Court for trial in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Code
But if the investigating police officer instead of submit ting a charge sheet as required by a 173 submits what is popularly called the final report to the effect that there was no evidence in support of the prosecution case and that it was not a fit case for a trial either by a magistrate or by a Court of Session or High Court the matter may not end there
It is open to the first informant or any other person interested in prosecuting the accused person to make a regular petition of complaint before a competent magis trate under section 190 of the Code
The magistrate upon taking cognizance under that section may start an inquiry of his own notwithstanding the fact that the police 52 404 has refused to prosecute the case
The magistrate in a case triable exclusively by a Court of Session or by a High Court has to follow the procedure laid down in section 208 and subsequent sections of Chapter XVIII
The magistrate natu rally has to make a record of the evidence given by the complainant and such other witnesses as may have been pro duced in support of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused if the accused chooses to adduce any evidence at that stage
Ordinarily an accused person does not choose to do so for the fear that he might disclose his defence too early
After recording the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as also on behalf of the accused if ad duced and examining the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him the magistrate may either discharge the accused person if he finds that there is no sufficient ground for committing him for trial after recording his reasons or direct him to be tried by himself or some other magistrate
The order of discharge may be made by the magistrate even at an earlier stage if he records the reasons for considering the charge to be groundless or he may commit the accused for trial after framing a charge declaring the offence with which the accused has been charged
It is also open to an accused person if the magistrate in his discretion allows him to do so to examine more witnesses
If after examining those additional witnesses the magistrate is satisfied that there are no sufficient grounds for committing the accused he may cancel the charge and discharge the accused
It will thus be seen that where the magistrate conducts commitment proceeding as on a complaint the accused has the advantage of three stages at which he may be discharged
It has therefore been contended on behalf of the appellants that the procedure under section 207A is less advantageous to the accused than the other procedure
The answer to this con tention is that the Legislature in its wisdom has proceed ed on the basis that it is primarily the function of the State through its police officers who are charged with the 405 duty of preventing the commission of crime and of bringing offenders to justice to prosecute criminals or alleged criminals  in serious cases that is to say cases involving not only personal injury to the complainant but also public peace and order
Such police officers have been enjoined by law to see to it that all persons alleged to have been concerned in a crime of that character should be speedily brought to justice
Chapter XIV of the Code as stated above lays down the procedure which police officers have to follow
Hence the Code has provided that all cases involv ing public peace and order should be investigated by public servants who are expected to be vigilant in bringing all offenders to justice without any avoidable delay
If the police have not thought it necessary or feasible to do so after following the procedure laid down in Chapter XIV the private party may figure before the magistrate as complain ant The magistrate has got therefore to be more vigilant in seeing that private vendetta and considerations other than those of vindicating justice are not allowed to inter fere with the administration of public justice
Hence the procedure laid down in section 208 and the sections follow ing that section naturally gives greater facilities to persons accused of an offence to vindicate their character
As indicated above there is no doubt that there are materi al differences in the two procedures relating to commitment according as the case has been investigated by a competent police officer who has submitted a charge sheet and a report under section 173 of the Code or a competent magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence on a complaint
In the latter case the procedure before the committing magistrate is more elaborate
But is it always to the advantage of an accused person that there should be an elaborate procedure before such a magistrate and not a summary one It is the avowed policy of the Legislature and there can be no doubt that it is in the general interest of administration of justice that crimes should be investigated and criminals brought to justice as expeditiously as circumstances of the case would 406 permit
That must also be in the interest of an accused person himself if he claims not to be guilty of any offence
Generally speaking therefore only a real offender would be interested in prolonging the inquiry or trial so as to postpone the day of judgment
If a person has been falsely or wrongly accused of an offence it is in his interest that he should get himself declared innocent by a competent court as early as possible
In view of these considerations there cannot be the least doubt that the Legislature has been well advised to amend the procedure relating to commit ment proceedings in cases which have been investigated by a competent police officer
The Legislature has rightly retained the old elaborate procedure only in those cases which have not been investigated by such a public officer or after investigation have been declared not to be fit to be proceeded with in public interest
Having found that there are substantial differences intro duced by the impugned provisions we have to consider the question of the constitutionality of those provisions
At the threshold it is pertinent to observe that these provi sions have not in any way affected the procedure at the trial
After a case has been committed to a Court of Ses sion the procedure for the trial of offences in either class of cases remains the same
Hence all those cases which came up to this Court in which it was laid down that the law introduced substantial changes in the procedure at the trial to the disadvantage of an accused person have absolutely no relevance to the present case
The main attack on the constitutionality of those provisions is based on article 14 of the Constitution
This Court had to consider the provisions of that article in a series of cases namely Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union of India 1 The State of Bombay vs F N Balsara 2 The State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar 3 Kathi Raning Rawat vs The State of Saurashtra4 Lachmandas 1  3  2 1951SCR 682
4  407 Kewalram Ahuja vs The State of Bombay 1 Qasim Razvi vs The State of Hyderabad2 Habeeb Mohamad vs The State of Hyderabad3 The State of Punjab vs Ajaib Singh4 which were all referred to in the case of Budhan Choudhry vs The State of Bihar5 which is the nearest case to the case now before us with this distinction that in that case there was a difference at the trial stage itself
In that case the same accused person in respect of the same of fence could be tried under section 30 of the Code by a magistrate empowered under that section and by a Court of Session if the offence happened to have taken place in a jurisdiction to which section 30 had not been applied
In that case this Court upheld the constitutionality of that section of the Code and repelled the Contention that the provisions of that section infringed the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by article 14 of the Constitution
In the course of his judgment Das J as he then was made the following observations which apply to the case in hand with full force   
It is now well established that while article 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation
In order however to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled namely 1 that the classifi cation must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and II that that differ entia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question
The classification may be founded on different basis namely geographical or according to objects or occupations or the like
What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under considera tion
It is also well established by the decisions of this Court that article 14 condemns 1 1952 SCR 710
2 I953 SCR 581
31953 SCR 661
4  5   1049
408 discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure
 The later case before this Court dealing with
the question of discrimination in respect of provisions of the Code is the one reported in Matajog Dobey vs HC Bhari1
In that case the constitutionality of section 197 of the Code was questioned
The contention raised in that case was that the section vested arbitrary power in the Government to grant or withhold sanction which could be withheld or granted at the sweet will of the Executive
This Court overruled that contention and held that a discretionary power is not neces sarily discriminatory
Applying the principles laid down by this Court to the case in hand to judge whether or not there has been objectionable discrimination there could not be the least doubt that the Legislature has provided for a clear classification between the two kinds of proceedings at the commitment stage based upon a very relevant consideration namely whether or not there has been a previous inquiry by a responsible public servant whose duty it is to discover crime and to bring criminals to speedy justice
This basis of classification is clearly connected with the underlying principle of admin istration of justice that an alleged criminal should be placed on his trial as soon after the commission of the crime as circumstances of the case would permit
This classification cannot be said to be unreasonable and not to have any relation to the object of the legislation namely a more speedy trial of offences without any avoidable delay
For the reasons given above it must be held that there is no discrimination and that the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution have not been contravened
The provisions of the Code impugned in this case must therefore be held to be constitutional
The appeal is accordingly dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The point in controversy in this appeal was whether SS 207 and 207A inserted into the Code of Criminal Procedure by the amending Act 26 of 1955 violated the provision of article 14 of the Constitution and were therefore invalid in law
The appellants were committed for trial to the Court of Session by the inquiring 397 Magistrate in a proceeding instituted against them on a Police report and he followed the procedure laid down in section 207A of the Code as required by section 207 Of the Code
The appellants moved the High Court for quashing the order of commitment on the ground that the provisions of section 207A introduced discrimination as against accused persons against whom proceedings were  instituted on Police report and were unconstitutional in character
The High Court held against them
The contention was reiterated in this Court and it was sought to be made out that the provisions Of section 207A of the Code in comparison and contrast to other provisions of Ch
XVIII of the Code prescribed a less advantageous procedure for the accused persons in a proceeding started on Police report than the procedure prescribed for other cases in the succeeding sections of the chapter
Held that sections 207 and 207A of the Code were not discriminatory and did not contravene article 14 of the Constitution and their constitutional validity was beyond question
Although there can be no doubt that the impugned sections introduced substantial difference in the procedure relating to commitment proceedings applicable to the two classes of cases they did not in any way affect the procedure at the trial and the true test of the constitutional validity of the classification they made was whether it was reasonable and pertinent to the object the Legislature had in view namely a speedy trial of offences with the least possible delay
So judged there could be no doubt that the Legislature in prescribing the two different procedures at the commitment stage one for proceedings instituted on Police report and the other for those that were not had acted on a consideration that was reasonable and connected with the object it had in view
Budhan Choudhry vs The State of Bihar   applied
Matajog Dobey vs H C Bhari   Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union of India   The State of Bombay vs F N Balsara   The State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar   Kathi Raning Rawat vs The State of Saurashtra 1952 SCR 435 Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja vs The State of Bombay   Qasim Razvi vs The State of Hyderabad   Habeeb Mohamad vs The State of Hyderabad  and The State of Punjab vs Ajaib Singh   referred to