PARUL MANCHANDA

Enrolment No.- A03104520106

CRCL-603

Ques 1Differentiate between ‘police diary’ and ‘police report’ and discuss their
relevance in criminal court.
POLICE REPORT
The Police Report is an oral and written record of acceptance of the facts and prosecutions as
described in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Police Officer shall send a report to
the Magistrate pursuant to subsection (2) of Section 173. The report referred to in Section 173
is a report on the findings of the investigation carried out under Chapter XVI the
commencement of proceedings before Magistrates of the Police Report. The final report ends
the evaluation process by means of a formal action plan. If there is no evidence or fairground
for suspecting the move of the accused to the court, the investigating authorities will submit
the report to the magistrate. To release the accused from custody on enforcement of an
immunity bond as ordered by the police, to appear before a magistrate, if necessary and
authorised, to do so.
The police report under Section 173 will contain the facts and conclusions drawn by police
there from . When an investigation culminates into a final report as contemplated under
Section 173 then the competent court enjoins a duty within its authority sanctioned by law to
scrupulously scrutinize the final report and the accompaniments by applying its judicial mind
and take a decision either to accept or reject the final report.
Magistrate doesn’t have power to call upon police to submit charge sheet after final report
under Section 173 (1) has been filed .At most he can ask police to carry out further
investigation under Section 156 (3) if not satisfied by final report.
Section 173, CrPC places a mandatory duty upon the Investigating Officer to place all
detailed materials, both oral and documentary, before the Magistrate, so that he may consider
the same and decide for himself whether it is a fit case for taking cognizance or not.
However, Investigation of an offence cannot be considered to be inconclusive merely for the
reason that the investigating officer, when he submitted his report in terms of sub-section (2)
of S. 173 of the Code to the Magistrate, still awaited the reports of the experts or by some
chance, either inadvertently or by design, failed to append to the police report such
documents or the statements under S. 161 of the Code, although these were available with
him when he submitted the police report to the Magistrate Once the final report is filed before
a competent court, it has authority given to it by law to carefully examine it through its just
and competent mind and accept or reject the final report. A magistrate is not bound by the
conclusion of the report and can also differ from the police. If not satisfied with the final
report, a magistrate can also ask the police to further investigate the case.

A Final report made under section 173 of CrPC is the outcome of the complete process of the
investigation made under section 155(2) or section 156(2); these sections provide the powers
to the police to investigate a non-cognizable case or cognizable, with or without the order of
the magistrate.
Purpose of a police report
Police reports are used to prosecute a defendant at the initial point of a criminal case as well
as to pursue civil action against a person. A case number or item number is indicated on or
near the top of the form, and it serves as a factual account of an incident in order to
investigate crimes. The case number begins with a year followed by a unique number. The
substance of police reports includes what victims, offenders, and witnesses heard in addition
to what the investigating officer saw on the site of an accident. Officers are also likely to take
photographs, sketch sketches, and measure distances.
Types of reports-
 The police officers have to make three reports at three different stages of
investigations. According to section 157, a preliminary report must be filed to the
magistrate by the officer in charge of a police station,
 Then, a subordinate police officer must report to the officer in charge of the police
station under section 168, reports like these are called forwarding reports,
 And finally, under section 173, a final report must be submitted to the magistrate by
the officer, once the investigation is complete. This report is also known as a
completion report or a charge sheet.
CASE DIARY
A case diary is important to record the investigation carried out by an Investigating Officer.
Case diary is a mean to assist the court in the inquiry or trial of a case but cannot be used as
hard core evidence. The Police diaries called for under section 172 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should not be shown to accused persons, or to their agents, or pleaders, except
under the circumstances stated in the second clause of section 172 of the Code, that is, when
they are used by a Police officer who made them to refresh his memory; or if the Court uses
them for the purpose of contradicting such Police Officer, Sessions Judges and Districts
Magistrates should issue such orders as are necessary to guard against, the Police diaries
being inspected by persons not entitled to see them. Every police officer making an
investigation shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, getting
forth at the time at which the information reached him at the time at which he began and
closed his investigation , the place or places visited by him and the statement of the
circumstances ascertained through his investigation. Section 172 (1) of CrPC directs the
investigation officer to keep a diary and enter the proceedings of the investigation. This
diary is called as case diary or “special diary” or “Police Diary” or a “Station House
Report”. Investigating officer is directed to mention in such diary the time at which the
information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation. The
statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation under Section
161(172(1A) . Also such diary shall be a volume and duly paginated. In case, Bhagwant
Singh v Commissioner of Police , Delhi (1983), it is utmost importance that the entries in
such a diary are made with sufficient promptness , in sufficient details , mentioning all the
significant facts , in careful chronological order and with complete objectivity.
As far as use of the Case Diary is concerned , it is dealt by section 172(2) and Section 172(3)
CrPC read with section 145 ,159 and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act . As per these
provisions , case diary can be used by the Criminal Court, Investigating officer and the
accused within the permissible limits of these sections.. According to sec 172(2) and
Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such court
and may use such diary not as evidence in the case but to aid it in such inquiry or trial. In this
regard Habeeb Mohammad v State of Hyderabad , the Supreme Court has that the police
diary of a case under inquiry or trial be made use of by criminal court only for aiding. It in
such inquiry or trial . This diary cannot be used as evidence of any date, fact or statement
contained herein. Further in case of A.K. Roy v State of West Bengal , it was held that the
Magistrate cannot take cognizance or issue process against the accused on the material
contained in the case diary alone unless the fact contained in the report under section 173 of
this code constitute the offence.
QUESTION 2-Explain the circumstances in which a magistrate takes cognizance of
case. Can a Court of Session take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original
jurisdiction? Discuss.
Ans- Cognizance of Offence
Meaning
Taking cognizance of an offence is the first and foremost steps towards trial . Cognizance
literally means knowledge or notice and taking cognizance of offence means taking notice, or
becoming aware of the alleged commission of an offence. Obviously , the judicial officer will
have to take cognizance of the offence . Obviously the judicial officer will have to take
cognizance of the offence before he could proceed to conduct a trial. The Code has not
defined or specifically explained the expression “ cognizance of an offence” or “taking
cognizance of an offence” . However the meaning of the expression is now well settled by the
Courts. Taking Cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind.
But occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of
an offence for the purpose of proceeding to take subsequent steps towards enquiry and trial. It
includes intention of initiating a judicial proceeding against an offender in respect of an
offence or taking steps to see whether there is a basis for initiating judicial proceeding. The
Magistrate’s order taking cognizance should reflect the application of his mind. In the context
of receiving a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC, the Supreme Court said that it is neither
practicable nor desirable to define as to what is meant by “Taking Cognizance”. It is settled
that court can take cognizance only once and after that it becomes functus officio.
By Whom
The following class of Magistrate/ Court can take cognizance of offences.
 Any magistrate of the first class may take cognizance of any offence. (Section
190(1)).
 Any magistrate of the second class , if specifically to empowered by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate (CJM) may take cognizance of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try( Section 190(2)).
 Except as otherwise expressly provided by the Code or by any other law, a Session
Court is not take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless
the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate.
Cognizance when taken
A Magistrate , as mentioned above any take cognizance of any offence
(a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offences
(b) Upon a police report of such facts
(c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his
own knowledge that such offence has been committed(Section 190(1))
A complaint referred to in (a) means
Any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate , with a view to his taking action
under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an
offence but does not include a police report.
As a further explanation it has been added:
A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses , after investigation , the
commission of non -cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint and the police
officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complaint (Explanation to
Section 2(d) )
The Police report referred in Sec 3(b) has been defined by section 2( r) as meaning “a
report by a police officer to a Magistrate under Section 173(2) i.e final report forwarded
by a police on the completion of Magistrate . It is for the Magistrate to decide whether the
report is complete for taking cognizance. Even if the investigating agency is of the view
that no case has been made against the accused, the Magistrate can take cognizance.
The Magisterial powers to take cognizance is very wide. It includes the power to take
cognizance of such persons., if it appears from the evidence that they were prima facie
guilty of the offence alleged to have been committed. In Dharam Pal v State of
Haryana , a five member bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the person who were not
included as accused in the police report could be summoned by the Magistrate who can
inquire into the case, or commit the case to the session court if the offences are triable by
the session court. . The session court can also summon them. It has also been clarified
that even if the case is triable by the Session court , the function of Magistrate is not to act
merely as a post office and commit the case to the session court but he is also empowered
to take cognizance, issue process and summon the accused and therefore commit the case
to the Session courts.
Since cognizance can be taken only once , the session court can take cognizance as the
court of original jurisdiction under section 193 only if the Magistrate has acted passively
under Section 209 CrPC.
Ordinarily , a private citizen intending to initiate criminal proceeding in respect of an
offence has two courses open to him . He may give information to the police if the
offence is a cognizable one, or he may go to Magistrate and file a complaint irrespective
 of whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable . But in either case of the matter
will be ultimately before the Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence.
The Magistrate’s power to take cognizance embraces situation where a person after
having been convicted on a police case initiated by the another brings up on the same
incident against the other and where the complaints bring up the protest petition after their
complaint have been dropped by the police.
Transfer of Case
Under clause (3) of Section 19(1) (c ) the Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence
upon his knowledge or information. But in such a case , section 191 requires that the
accused must be informed before the taking of any evidence that he is entitled to have the
case inquired into or tried by another Magistrate and if the accused objects to the
proceedings being conducted before the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence , the
case will have to be transferred to such Magistrate as may be specified by the CJM
(Section 191) Failure to tell the accused of his right to be tried by another Magistrate
vitiates the trial and this illegality would not be cured by section 465. Further the refusal
of the accused person’s request for transfer in such case would be illegal.
Section 192 has empowered the CJM or a duly authorised Magistrate of the First class to
transfer a case to another competent Magistrate for administrative convenience. The
transfer under Section 192 can be made only after taking cognizance of the offence.
Time limitation
A magistrate can take cognizance of an offence within the time limits prescribed by law
for this purpose.
Interrelation between Secs. 156, 173, and 190
A Magistrate on receipt of a complaint, may take cognizance of the offences,. or he can,
without taking cognizance, order an investigation under Sec. 156(3). In the latter case, on
receiving a police report under Sec. 173(1), he may thereafter, do one of the three things:
I. He may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop
action.
II. He may take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police
report (this he may do without being bound in any manner b y the conclusive arrived
at by the police in their report) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The
Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Secs.
200 and 202 for taking cognizance of the case under Sec. 190(1)(a) though it is open
to him to act under Sec. 200 and 202 also [India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v State of Karnataka,
1989 CrLJ 885 (SC); Minu Kumari v State of Bihar (2006)4 SCC 359].

Sec. 190(1)(b) applies to any police report whether of a cognizable or non-cognizable

offence. If ultimately, the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts set out in the final report
constitute an offence, then he can take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 190(1)(c),
notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report [Abhinandan Jha
v Dinesh Mishra]
In Moti Lal Songara v Prem Prakash @ Pappu (2013), held: "Upon receipt of police
report a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence even if the police report is to
the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account
the statements of the witness examined by the police during the investigation and take
cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. Sec.
190(1)(b) does not lay down that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only if the
investigating officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the
accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and
independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take
cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his powers under Sec. 190(1)(b) and
direct the issue of process to the accused.

COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE BY COURT OF SESSION (SECTION 193)

Except as otherwise provided by the Code or any other law, no Session Court shall take
cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been
committed to it by a Magistrate under the Code(Section 193)
The object of this section is to secure to the person charged a preliminary enquiry which
would afford him the opportunity of being acquainted with the circumstances of the offence
imputed to him and enabled him to make his defence. A session courts cannot take
cognizance of a case unless it has been committed to it by a Magistrate ,except in case in
which it is expressly empowered to take cognizance of an offence. Therefore trial of a person
who is not committed to the Session court is ultra vires (Emperor v Md. Mehdi )
However , a Session judge can well proceed against a person, though not committed for trial
by a magistrate , if his involvement in the commission of prima facie appears from the record,
even when no evidence has been recorded in the case (Kishun Singh v State of Bihar ) .
Where the Session court received orders from the Supreme Court , cognizance of the offence
by it without the committal proceedings was valid.
Ques 3 Discuss the powers of Executive Magistrate for dispersal of unlawful assembly
under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Unlawful assembly is a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of
deliberate disturbance of the peace.  If the group are about to start the act of disturbance, it is
termed a rout; if the disturbance commenced, its then termed a riot.
The main element in declaring unlawful assembly as a criminal offence is a common
intention. If a group of 5 or more people gather together without any intention of inciting the
above-said things, the assembly won’t be considered as unlawful. The Constitution of India
guarantees every citizen a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b) to assemble peaceably
and without arms. This is contrary to the unlawful assembly as defined under section 141 of
IPC.
The landmark cases of Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of UP where the court held that
restricting Article 19 (a) and (b) was reasonable to recent cases of state wide bans on the
internet. This section moreover gives the magistrate discretionary power to impose section
144 on his reasonability and understanding. The case of Manzur Hasan v Muhammad Zaman
first held this and observed that 'The Magistrate should apply his mind to see whether the
matter is of such urgency as to require an order under this section.' This paper however will
be restricted to the issue of the wide-ranging restrictions and excessive power to the
magistrate. It will discuss how the powers vested with the magistrate are used with a wide
interpretation and impact of the restrictions on the society.
Therefore, any group of five or more people gathered together or acting independently but
towards achieving one object which is any one or more of the five objects aforementioned is
an unlawful assembly. To constitute an unlawful assembly, it is not necessary that the
assembly was formed with the intention to accomplish said objects but if an assembly later
decides to commit an act which falls under any of the five categories, it will be considered as
‘unlawful assembly’ under Section 141 of the IPC.
Section 144 confers powers to issue an order absolute at once in urgent cases of nuisance or
apprehended danger. Specified classes of magistrates may make such orders when in their
opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding under the section and immediate prevention
or speedy remedy is desirable. It requires the magistrate to issue the order in writing setting
forth the material facts of the case and the order is to be served in the manner provided by
section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The wording of the section envisages a situation
wherein the power provided there under may be exercised on the assessment of the
Magistrate himself - a subjective satisfaction. However, the judicial pronouncement as dealt
with in the paper, aptly show that certain stringent conditions have been imposed by the
Courts on this most plenary powers. Therefore, as the case law discussed would indicate, not
only would the Court consider the situations as assessed by the Magistrate but would also
take into cognizance factors as to whether the orders issued under section 144 were vague or
directed to a specific person.
The scheme and the provisions of the section show that it is meant to provide for temporary
remedy to meet an emergency and that it applies to cases where for a temporary orders in the
nature of things would be appropriate and would afford a reasonable adequate relief under the
circumstances of the case. The object of this section is to enable a Magistrate, in cases of
emergency, to make an immediate order for the purpose of preventing an imminent breach of
the peace, etc.; but it is not intended to relieve him of the duty of making a proper inquiry
into the circumstances which make it likely that such breach of the peace, etc., will occur, as
held in case of Abdu v Lucky Narain Mundul 1879.
The extent of the authority possessed by the Magistrate is to spend the exercise of the right on
particular occasions and not to prohibit it absolutely and before the occasion arises which
entitles him to act.
These restrictions are within the limits of the saving provision of Art.19 (2) and (3) of the
Constitution as was decided in case Ram Manohar Lohia 1968. The exercise of power ender
section 144 of the Cr.P.C. must be in aid of the legal rights and against those who interfere
with the lawful exercise thereof.
Action under this section is anticipatory, that is, it is utilized to restrict certain actions even
before they actually occur. Anticipatory restrictions are imposed generally in cases of
emergency, where there is an apprehended danger of some event that has the potential to
cause major public nuisance or damage to public tranquility. The gist of action under S.144 is
the urgency of the situation; its efficacy is the likelihood of being able to prevent some
harmful occurrences. Preservation of the public peace and tranquility is the primary function
of the Government and the aforesaid power is conferred on the Executive Magistracy
enabling it to perform that function effectively during the emergent situations.
It confers full powers on certain Magistrates to take prompt action in cases of emergency
when immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable. If there is neither an urgency
calling for the application of a speedy remedy nor apprehension of danger to human life,
health or safety, etc., the Magistrate cannot issue an order under this section. As it is possible
to act absolutely and even ex parte it is obvious that the emergency must be sudden and the
consequences sufficiently grave. Without it the exercise of power would be totally futile. The
Magistrate should apply his mind to see whether the matter is of such urgency as to require
an order under this section.
The order must state the facts on the basis of which the Magistrate has decided to invoke this
section. The mere statement of a Magistrate that he considered the case to be imminent is not
sufficient to give him jurisdiction, if the facts set out by him show that really there was no
urgent necessity for action in this connection.
Purpose of Dispersal
The Code grants powers to its functionaries to disperse members of such unlawful assemblies
to ensure that public order and peace is maintained in the society. The provision is considered
necessary because the formation of unlawful assembly and being a part of unlawful assembly
has been made an offence under the IPC punishable under Section 143 and if one of the
members of the assembly commit any offence. Therefore, dispersal of these assemblies come
under the prevention of crime and comes within the ambit of the scope of the CrPC. These
sections under the CRPC give powers to the Executive Magistrates as well as police officers
to disperse unlawful assemblies as such assemblies may disrupt or have the potential to
disrupt public order and peace of society. It may also cause harm to public property and
injury to the rest of the public. The Constitution, therefore, has conferred powers upon
Executive magistrates as well as other police authorities and also armed forces to disperse
such assemblies. 

The provision for dispersal of an unlawful assembly is considered important because it has
been deemed an offence under section 141 of the IPC and members being a part of it are
punishable under sections 143,144,145 and 149 of the IPC. Even if just one member commits
an offence during such assembly, all the persons being part of it will be charged for the same.
So, in order to prevent crimes, provisions of dispersal of such assemblies have been given
under the CRPC.An executive magistrate is conferred with various powers regarding
unlawful assembly in order to ensure public order and peace in society as an unlawful
assembly creates an unruly situation of public order and security.

In dire cases of nuisance or apprehended threats, the executive magistrate is empowered to

issue orders to the effect of controlling or curbing those. There should be sufficient grounds
for initiating the procedure under this section for instantaneous prevention or immediate
relief. The section is primarily aimed at controlling harmful occurrences in the society and
the graveness and the suddenness of the situation is seen by the absolute power in issuing the
order and does not even provide the opportunity to the other part to show cause However, a
need to maintain checks on such powers was found in the case of Gopalji Prasad v State of
Sikkim  ,where it was ruled that the magistrate was required to record his reasons in writing
and should have applied his mind and should not be arbitrary. It does not come within the
purview of a normal administrative order but requires judicial scrutiny in order to test its
efficiency and extent of application. The power entrusted is neither absolute nor supreme but
is subjected to scrutiny by the higher courts.

 Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 states the dispersal of

unlawful assembly by use of civil force

Any executive magistrate or police officer with a minimum rank of sub-inspector can order
any unlawful assembly to disperse if the assembly is likely to produce a public disturbance.
Members of such an assembly are obligated to disperse as a result.

Any Executive magistrate or police officer with a minimum rank of sub-inspector is

empowered to take the following actions if such an assembly does not disperse or indicates a
determination not to disperse, with or without being commanded:
1. Use force to disperse the assembled crowd.
2. He can enlist the aid of any male person, even if he is not an officer or a member of the
armed forces, if assistance is required.
3. If deemed necessary, he can arrest and confine the members of such assembly.
If the members of unlawful assembly don’t adhere to the instructions of the authorities in-
charge, they will be punished by law. Before any force can be used for the dispersal of an
unlawful assembly, three prerequisites as mentioned in Karam Singh v. Hardayal Singh
should be satisfied. Firstly, there should be an unlawful assembly with the object of
committing violence or an assembly of five or more persons likely to disturb public peace
and tranquillity. Secondly, such assembly is ordered to be dispersed immediately by the
competent authority. Thirdly, in spite of such order to disperse, such assembly does not
disperse. Thirdly, in spite of such order to disperse, such assembly does not disperse or does
not, ex facie, seem to be dispersing.

 Section 130 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 states the dispersal of unlawful

assembly by use of armed forces:

The Executive Magistrate of the highest rank present may order the armed forces to
disperse an unlawful gathering if the assembly cannot be dispersed in any other way
and if it is required for public safety. Such a Magistrate has the authority to order any
officer in command of the current armed forces group to disperse the assembly with
the assistance of the armed forces under his command. If necessary, he may request
that the current officer arrest and imprison any persons implicated. The Magistrate has
the authority to have the members of the unlawful assembly, or a portion of them,
punished according to the law. Every such officer shall obey such order in a manner
he deems fit, but while doing so he shall use rational and minimum force. He shall do
as little damage to person or property, as may be required for dispersing the assembly
and arresting and detaining the involved persons.
 The Magistrate may use the assistance of any group of persons belonging to any of
the three armed forces (Army, Navy and Air Force) and with such officers under his
command, he may order the arrest and confinement of persons who formed the part of
such assembly. However, clause 3 provides that the armed forces and the
commanding Magistrate should use as little force as required and cause minimal
possible injury to any person or property.

 Section 131 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 states the power of certain armed

force officers to disperse assembly with a condition added regarding executive
magistrate.

 Any commissioned or gazetted officer of the armed forces may-

1. Disperse any such assembly with the help of the armed forces under his command.
2. Arrest and confine any persons involved in such unlawful assembly.

Provided the public security is clearly endangered by any such assembly and any Executive
Magistrate cannot be communicated with.

However, as soon as it is practical for the gazetted or commissioned official to communicate

with an Executive Manager, he must do so, and he must then obey the Magistrate's directions
and evaluate whether the Magistrate wants the action to continue.

 Section 132 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 states protection against

prosecution for acts under preceding sections.

No prosecution shall be instituted in any Criminal Court against any person who has done an
action under section 129, 130 and 131. However, there are certain exceptions to this
provision. The Prosecution shall be instituted, If the Central government has sanctioned such
prosecution against an officer or member of the armed forces. If the State Government has
sanctioned such prosecution in any other case. No Executive Magistrate or police officer who
acted in good faith under the above said sections. No person doing an act in good faith in
compliance who has been requisitioned under section 129 and section 130;

1. No officer of the armed forces who have done any action under section 131 in
good faith;
2. No member of the armed forces who did an act that he was bound to do under
obedience, shall be deemed to have thereby committed an offence. 

 Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 ‘as a preventive measure’ gives

the power to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. This
section gives power to any Executive Magistrate of the highest rank present to
issue an order to prohibit the assembly of five or more people if he is of the
opinion that an action for immediate prevention or speedy remedy is necessary to
be taken against the apprehended danger in case of emergency.

Clause 1 of the section mentions three situations for such action- Firstly,  to prevent
obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed. Secondly, to prevent a
danger to human life, health or safety. Thirdly, to prevent any disturbance of the public
tranquillity or a riot or an affray. This power conferred under Section 144of the code acts as a
major tool in hands of Executive Magistrate to prevent obstruction, annoyance, injury etc to
the general public. This section requires the Magistrate to issue the order in writing setting
forth the material facts of the case and the order is to be served according to Section 134 of
the code. The actions taken under this section are anticipatory, i.e. it utilized to restrict certain
actions even before they actually occur. These actions are generally imposed in case of
emergency, where there is an apprehend danger of some event that has potential to cause
major public nuisance or cause danger to public tranquility or public peace. The crux of
action taken under Section 144 is the urgency of situation; the capability is the likelihood of
being able to avoid certain harmful occurrences. Protection and preservation of public peace
and public tranquility is the very first function and the aforesaid power is conferred on
Executive Magistrate enabling it to perform such function effectively and efficiently during
the emergent situations.