Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.9088 of 2012)

State of Kerala                  ..  Appellant (s)

Versus

P.B. Sourabhan & Ors.              ...Respondent (s)

WITH Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2016

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.9388 of 2012)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that arises for decision in the present  

appeals is whether the State Police Chief/Director General of  

Police  is  empowered  to  appoint  a  superior  police  officer  to

Page 2

2

investigate  a  crime  case  registered  outside  the  territorial  

jurisdiction of such officer.  

3. The High Court answered the aforesaid question in the  

negative giving rise to the present appeals by the State as well  

as by the complainant in one of  the cases (who is also the  

accused in the other case) at whose instance the appointment  

was made and authorisation issued by the State Police Chief.  

4. Over certain matrimonial  disputes between the parties,  

two police cases i.e. Crime No. 621 of 2011 and Crime No. 637  

of  2011  were  registered  in  the  Pettah  Police  Station.  The  

complainant in Crime No. 637 of 2011, who is the accused in  

Crime No. 621 of 2011, had filed a representation before the  

State  Police  Chief  for  further  investigation by a competent/  

neutral  officer.  On the  said  representation,  the  State  Police  

Chief by an order dated 24.01.2012 directed the District Police  

Chief  of  Thiruvananthapuram  City  that  the  Assistant  

Commissioner of Police,  Cantonment,  Thiruvananthapuram  

City  may  be  entrusted  with  further  investigation  of  Crime  

Nos.621 of  2011 and 637 of  2011 of  Pettah Police  Station.

Page 3

3

Pursuant to the above direction of the State Police Chief, one  

M.G.Haridas, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment,  

Thiruvananthapuram City was authorised to conduct further  

investigation of the two cases and send weekly reports. This  

was by order dated 12.03.2012 of the Deputy Commissioner of  

Police (L & O) Thiruvananthapuram City. Thereafter it appears  

that  the  specially  authorised  and  entrusted  officer  filed  an  

application  before  the  learned  trial  court  for  further  

investigation of the two cases which was allowed by the said  

court  on  20.03.2012.  The  aforesaid  order  appointing  M.G.  

Haridas,  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Police,  Cantonment  to  

conduct further investigation of the two cases and the order of  

the learned trial court dated. 20.03.2012 granting permission  

for  further  investigation  under  Section  173(8)  Cr.P.C  were  

assailed before the High Court. The challenge before the High  

Court was primarily on the ground that the said orders are in  

excess of the powers vested by Section 36 of the Cr. P.C. and  

that  Section  18  of  the  Kerala  Police  Act  which  vests  the  

administration, supervision, direction and control of the police

Page 4

4

throughout the State in the State Police Chief cannot override  

the provisions of Section 36 Cr. P.C.  

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  

considered the matter.

6. Section 36 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 18(1) of the Police  

Act are in the following terms :

“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 be 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.”

7. 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

Page 5

5

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. We do not see how Section 36 Cr.P.C, 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 Cr.P.C  

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

Page 6

6

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 Cr.P.C.  

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.  

8. In  the  instant  case  the  High Court,  in  our  considered  

view,  was  not  right  in  reading  the  constraints  imposed  by  

Section 36 of  the Cr.P.C.  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. This, however, is not the ground(s) on which  

the impugned actions were challenged before the High Court.  

Furthermore, a perusal of the representation on the basis of

Page 7

7

which the appointment of the special officer was made by the  

State Police Chief goes to show that what was sought for was  

the appointment  of  a  neutral  and impartial  police officer  to  

conduct further investigation in a fair and unbiased manner  

without specifically naming of any particular officer in the said  

application.  

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot agree with the view  

taken  by  the  High  Court  and  the  conclusions  reached.  

Consequently, the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the High  

Court is set aside and both appeals are allowed.  

…….…………………………...J.                    [RANJAN GOGOI]

         …………………………….……J.     [PRAFULLA C. PANT]

NEW DELHI; MARCH 04, 2016.

Page 8

8