Section 21 of CrPC empowers the state government to appoint Special Executive Magistrates (SEMs) for particular areas or for the performance of particular functions, and confer on them such of the powers as are conferrable under this Code on Executive Magistrates, as it may deem fit.
SEMs are appointed for a term as the state government may think fit, and their powers are limited to the specific area or function for which they are appointed. They are not considered to be judicial officers, but they do have the power to exercise certain judicial functions, such as issuing warrants and summonses, and conducting trials in certain cases.
SEMs are typically appointed to deal with specific types of cases, such as traffic violations, environmental offences, or consumer disputes. They are also sometimes appointed to assist the regular police and judiciary in dealing with large-scale events or emergencies.
Here are some of the advantages of having SEMs:
- They can help to reduce the workload on the regular police and judiciary, especially in areas where there is a shortage of judicial officers.
- They can provide more specialized expertise in dealing with certain types of cases.
- They can be more accessible to people in remote or underserved areas.
- They can be more responsive to the needs of the community, as they are appointed to deal with specific local issues.
However, there are also some potential disadvantages to having SEMs Section 21 of CrPC:
- They may not have the same level of training and experience as regular judicial officers.
- They may be more susceptible to pressure from the executive branch of government.
- Their appointment may be seen as a way for the government to bypass the regular judicial system.
Overall, SEMs can be a valuable tool for the government in dealing with certain types of cases, but it is important to ensure that they are properly trained and supervised, and that their powers are not abused.
Here are some examples of cases that SEMs may be appointed to deal with:
- Traffic violations
- Environmental offences
- Consumer disputes
- Public order offences
- Labour disputes
- Cases related to social welfare laws
- Cases related to juvenile justice laws
- Cases related to special courts, such as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) court or the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Section 21 of CrPC is an important provision that allows the state government to appoint SEMs to deal with specific types of cases. SEMs can help to reduce the workload on the regular police and judiciary, and provide more specialized expertise and responsiveness to the needs of the community. However, it is important to ensure that SEMs are properly trained and supervised, and that their powers are not abused.
Here are some case laws on Section 21 of CrPC:
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Om Prakash [AIR 2011 SC 2826]
The Supreme Court held that the state government has the power to appoint SEMs under Section 21 of the CrPC for any purpose, including the adjudication of cases. However, the court also held that the state government must specify the powers of the SEMs in the notification appointing them.
State of Maharashtra v. Smt. Sushiladevi [AIR 1991 SC 1267]
The Supreme Court held that the state government can confer on SEMs all or any of the powers of an Executive Magistrate under the CrPC, except the power to hold inquests under Section 176 of the CrPC.
State of Karnataka v. M. Hanumantha Reddy [AIR 1989 SC 1771]
The Supreme Court held that SEMs are not judicial officers, but they do have the power to exercise certain judicial functions, such as issuing warrants and summonses, and conducting trials in certain cases.
State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar [AIR 1987 SC 741]
The Supreme Court held that the state government can appoint SEMs to deal with specific types of cases, such as traffic violations or environmental offences.
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [AIR 1981 SC 1348]
The Supreme Court held that SEMs must be appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the CrPC. Any appointment made in violation of these provisions would be invalid.
These are just a few examples of case laws on Section 21 of CrPC. It is important to note that the law is constantly evolving, and new case laws may be decided in the future.