z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-03.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 155
ON THE BOMBAY POLICE ACT AMENDMENT BILL 155
against him or his witnesses were not examined, and lastly—according to Mr. Pataskar’s amendment—there was no material before the Commissioner of Police upon which he could have passed his order. What the honourable member Mr. Bhole seeks to add is that the condition that has been laid down in part (I) of the amendment of the honourable member Mr. Pataskar, namely, that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence shall also be one of the grounds on which the magisterial court could quash the order. Therefore, it is not a limitation upon the authority of the Magistrate. There is a procedure prescribed, and all that the clause says is, that the High Court or the magisterial court shall see that all these kinds of procedure are followed by the Commissioner of Police. The honourable member Mr. Pataskar does not seek, nor does anybody here seek, that the High Court or the magisterial court shall sit in judgment over the question whether the material was reliable. All that is needed for it to see is that the Commissioner had material. Similarly what the honourable member Mr. Bhole seeks to do is that the court should see that the Commissioner of Police had really taken into consideration the fact whether witnesses were prepared to come. The honourable member Mr. Bhole’s amendment does not seek to give the High Court or the magisterial court the power to sit in judgment over the question as to why the witnesses were not prepared to come. The High Court or the magisterial court is not to sit in judgment over that question and say “These are grounds on which nobody ought to be satisfied”. The finality of judgment is with the Commissioner of Police. What the amendment of the honourable member Mr. Bhole seeks to do is to bring into this clause a condition which we have imposed by passing the amendment of the honourable member Mr. Pataskar, which is a procedural condition, so as to make the Bill a complete whole. There is no conflict between the amendment we have passed and the honourable member Mr. Bhole’s amendment. All that is necessary is to add the words “in the opinion of the Commissioner”, and I move it.
† Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I explain, Sir ? The position, briefly is this We have given certain powers to the court under renumbered sub-section ( 7 ); when a person is brought before a Magistrate for breaking the order of the Commissioner, the Magistrate has power to see that the proper procedure was followed. One of the things that the Presidency Magistrate has to see is whether the Commissioner had material before him. Now, this clause says that when the matter comes up before the Presidency Magistrate, the Commissioner or some other person will have to go into the witness box in order to inform the court that he had some material on which he could act. This clause says that in giving this evidence either the Police Commissioner or some other officer whom he may depute shall lead to the identity of a person or the identity of a property. I am explaining the place of sub †B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 3, pp. 2598-99, dated 29th April 1938