T.P.MUKHERJI, J. - (1.) SOMETIME in the year 1966 on information lodged at the instance of opposite party No. 1, the Detective Department of the Calcutta Police took up investigation into a case involving offences of cheating, forgery, conspiracy etc against the present petitioner. In April 1967 the petitioner filed a complaint against opposite parties 1, 2 and 8 in the court of the police magistrate at Alipore alleging similar offences. The learned magistrate sent the complaint to the officer -in -charge of Watgunge police station for investigation. The order was made obviously under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, it appears, the investigating officer who was investigating the case earlier instituted at the instance of opposite party No. 1 moved the Deputy Commissioner of the Detective Department praying that that case as also the case of the Watgunge police station referred to above may be investigated by the same officer. On July 20, 1967 D.C.D.D. approved the proposal and directed one Sub -inspector Seal, the investigating officer of the earlier case, to take up investigation of the Watgunge police station case too. Sub -inspector Seal took up investigation of the other case and in due course intimated the police magistrate of the transfer of investigation I thereof under orders of the D.C.D.D. It is against this order of transfer of investigation of the Watgunge police station case to the Detective Department that the present petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.
(2.) MR . Banerjee appearing in support of the Rule contends that the officer -in -charge of the Watgunge police station having been directed by the police magistrate under Section 156(3), Criminal P.C. to take cognizance of the offence and to investigate into the same, the D.C.D.D. bad no authority to butt in and to transfer the case from him to his own department. This action of the D.C.D.D. is challenged as being in violation of the direction of the learned magistrate given under Section 156(3), Criminal P.C. and as being wholly -illegal.
(3.) MR . Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the State refers to Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to Calcutta Gazette notification No. 1678G dated March 10, 1958 which made that section applicable to the Calcutta police and contended that the D.C.D.D. being an officer superior in rank to the officer in charge of the Watgunge police station could very well have exercised the same power of investigation in regard to the present case as that officer in charge could have exercised under Section 156 and 157, Criminal P.C. Mr. Roy for the opposite party No. 1 also refers to Section 551, Criminal P.C. and argues that in accordance with the provisions of that Section the D.C.D.D., could very well have exercised the powers of the officer in charge of the Watgunge police station under Sections 156 and 157. Criminal P.C. and in exercise of that power he may very well have withdrawn the investigation from the officer of the police station who had been delegated that power of investigation by the officer, in -charge and then transfer the investigation to another officer subordinate to himself. It was contended that in withdrawing the investigation and in transferring the investigation to another officer, the D.C.D.D., by virtue of his power under Section 551 of the Code did not exceed the powers of the officer in charge of the Watgunge police station. This latter officer, so Mr. Boy argued, had delegated the investigation to a subordinate officer and he himself could have with., drawn the delegation and transferred the investigation to some other officer because a power of delegation implies also a power of withdrawing such delegation. The action of.) the D.C.D.D. in the circumstances of this case did not exceed the powers that the offices in charge of the Watgunge police station could have exercised.;