Case: Chittaranjan Das Vs. The State Of Orissa

It was, according to the learned counsel, essential under Section 20, as it stood before the amendment, that the authority should be in respect of some specified individual offence. As notification dated December, 16, 1964 was issued before Act 37 of l954 was amended by Act 49 of 1964 and as the said notification gave a general authority to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, to give consent for instituting prosecutions for offences under the Act committed within the local limits of Cuttack Municipality, the said notification it is urged, was not in accordance with law.7. As against the above, Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the State has argued that there is no infirmity in the notification dated December 16, 1964 and such a notification could have been validly issued under Section 20 of the Act, as it stood before the amendment. In our opinion there is force in the submission of Mr. Chatterjee.8. It would appear from what has been stated above that the short question which arises for consideration is whether it is permissible for the State Government or local authority under Section 20, as it stood before the amendment to give a general authority to a person to give consent to the institution of prosecutions for offences under the Act without mentioning a specified individual offence. We have reproduced above Section 20, as it stood before the amendment, and we find nothing in its language which makes it imperative to specify a particular offence in the order authorising a person to give consent to the institution of prosecution. The words "in this behalf" in the above provision, to which our attention has been invited, indicate that the authority conferred by the State Government or local authority upon a person should relate to the giving of written consent for institution of prosecutions for offences under the Act. It is difficult to spell out an inference from those words that the authority conferred upon a person under the above provision cannot be a general authority in respect of offences under the Act but must relate to some specified individual offence. If the interpretation sought to be placed upon the words "in this behalf" on behalf of the appellant were to be accepted, in such an event no general authority can be conferred even under sub-section (1) of Section 20, as amended by Act 49 of 1964, because even the amended section contains those words. The words "by general or special order" in the amended section in that event would become meaningless and lose all significance. It is, indeed, not disputed that under the amended section a general authority can be conferred upon a person for giving consent to the institution of prosecutions for offences under the Act. The words "in this behalf" in sub-section (1) of S. 20, as it existed before the amendment, as well as after the amendment must obviously carry the same meaning. If those words in the amended section do not postulate that the authority conferred by the State Government or local authority should have reference to a specified individual offence committed by a particular accused, we fail to understand as to how those words as used in the section before the amendment would carry a different connotation.9. Perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, as it existed before the amendment, shows that the legislature had twofold object in enacting this provision. One object was to prevent institution of prosecutions for offences under the Act unless written consent to the institution of such prosecutions was given by the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or local authority. The other object was to relieve the State Government or local authority of the necessity of applying its mind and dealing with each individual case of prosecution under the Act. Provision was accordingly made to enable the State Government or local authority to assign the function of giving written consent to some other person. In case the authority conferred by the State Government or local authority could not be general but had to relate to an individual offence, the very purpose of the latter part of sub-section (1) of Section 20 would be defeated, for it would in such an event become necessary for the State Government or local authority first to authorise a person to give written consent in respect of an individual case of prosecution and thereafter for the, person authorised to pass another order for giving the written consent. The result would be that what could be done in one step by the State Government or local authority by straightway giving its written consent would have to be done in two steps. It is difficult to accede to the contention that the above provision instead of simplifying the matter was intended to make it needlessly more cumbersome.10. The change made in S. 20 by Act 49 of l964 has now put the thing beyond any plea of controversy. Even without the change made in the section, the authority conferred by the State Government or local authority upon a person for giving the consent contemplated by the section, in our opinion, could be of general nature and it was not essential that the order authorising the person should have mentioned specified individual offences. The amendment made in this section had the effect of making more clear what was already contemplated by the section.11. The Madras High Court in the case of Corporation of Madras v. Arumugham, AIR 1966 Mad 194 the Mysore High Court in the case of Laxman Sitaram Pai v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1967 Mys 33 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Thatha Rao. AIR 1968 Andh Pra 17 have all taken the view that a general authorisation to launch prosecutions under the Act is sufficient. For the reasons stated above, we agree with the view taken in the above three cases.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We have reproduced above Section 20, as it stood before the amendment, and we find nothing in its language which makes it imperative to specify a particular offence in the order authorising a person to give consent to the institution of prosecution. The words "in this behalf" in the above provision, to which our attention has been invited, indicate that the authority conferred by the State Government or local authority upon a person should relate to the giving of written consent for institution of prosecutions for offences under the Act. It is difficult to spell out an inference from those words that the authority conferred upon a person under the above provision cannot be a general authority in respect of offences under the Act but must relate to some specified individual offence. If the interpretation sought to be placed upon the words "in this behalf" on behalf of the appellant were to be accepted, in such an event no general authority can be conferred even under sub-section (1) of Section 20, as amended by Act 49 of 1964, because even the amended section contains those words. The words "by general or special order" in the amended section in that event would become meaningless and lose all significance. It is, indeed, not disputed that under the amended section a general authority can be conferred upon a person for giving consent to the institution of prosecutions for offences under the Act. The words "in this behalf" in sub-section (1) of S. 20, as it existed before the amendment, as well as after the amendment must obviously carry the same meaning. If those words in the amended section do not postulate that the authority conferred by the State Government or local authority should have reference to a specified individual offence committed by a particular accused, we fail to understand as to how those words as used in the section before the amendment would carry a different connotation.The change made in S. 20 by Act 49 of l964 has now put the thing beyond any plea of controversy. Even without the change made in the section, the authority conferred by the State Government or local authority upon a person for giving the consent contemplated by the section, in our opinion, could be of general nature and it was not essential that the order authorising the person should have mentioned specified individual offences. The amendment made in this section had the effect of making more clear what was already contemplated by the section.11. The Madras High Court in the case of Corporation of Madras v. Arumugham, AIR 1966 Mad 194   the Mysore High Court in the case of Laxman Sitaram Pai v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1967 Mys 33 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Thatha Rao. AIR 1968 Andh Pra 17 have all taken the view that a general authorisation to launch prosecutions under the Act is sufficient. For the reasons stated above, we agree with the view taken in the above three cases.