| Citation | AIR 1971 Raj 18, 1971 CriLJ 239, 1970 (3) WLN 380 |
| Date of Judgment | 17 April, 1970 |
| Court | Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court |
| Case Type | Revision petution |
| Appellant | Badarmal And Ors. |
| Respondent | Roshanlal And Anr |
| Bench | Honorable Mr. justice Kan Singh |
| Referred | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 |
Badarmal And Ors. vs Roshanlal And Anr.
FACTS
On September 7, 1967, a man named Roshanlal filed a report with the Doongla police station against the eight accused petitioners, saying that they had engaged in rioting. In response to this information, the police opened an investigation and filed a complaint under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code against each defendant. According to Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the police gave a final report on the matter to the Munsif Magistrate in Doongla on January 15, 1968, stating that there was no justification for issuing a challan. Then Roshanlal submitted a petition of objection. The learned Magistrate concluded that the information in the final report supported the allegations made by the prosecution Sub-Inspector and Roshanlal’s attorney. Two revision petitions were filed in the case.
According to Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the police issue a final report following their investigations. According to Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, every investigation under this Chapter must be finished without undue delay, and as soon as it is, the officer in charge of the police station must send a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information, and the names of the people who appear to be acquainted to a Magistrate who has the authority to take cognizance of the offense on a police report. According to Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if after conducting an investigation pursuant to this Chapter it appears to the Police Officer in charge of the Police station or to the Police Officer conducting the investigation that there is insufficient proof or a reasonable basis for suspicion to warrant referring the accused to a magistrate, the Police Officer shall, if the person is in custody, release him upon his execution of a bond, with or without sureties, as the Police Officer may direct.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the magistrate could act only under Section 190 (1) (c) and supported the same with a decision of the Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117. The Lordships in that case were debating whether a Magistrate might order the Police to post a challan after receiving a deferred charge-sheet or the Police’s final report in a case it had investigated. Their Lordships pointed out that the officer in charge of the police station is the one who decides whether there is enough evidence to bring the accused to trial, and that neither an implied nor an express power existed that would have allowed the magistrate to pass the appropriate order in the case. Their Lordships continued by stating that if the Magistrate disagreed with the conclusion reached, there was no obligation to accept the report.
In para 15 of the judgement their Lordships have stated very clearly in this paragraph that the Magistrate may declare an offense in violation of Section 190(1)(b) even if the police expressed a different opinion in the final report if the Magistrate ultimately determines that the facts detailed in the report constitute an offense. A previous ruling by their Lordships, Pravin Chandra v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1185, demonstrates that an offense related to a non-cognizable case under Section 190(1)(b) may be included in a police report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
(DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE REVISION PETITION CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS ARE NOT RECORDED)
OBSERVATIONS MADE/ JUDGEMENT:
Justice Kan Singh further believed that the police’s final report, which was presented in accordance with Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was only a police report. That is strongly implied by the section’s heading. The Criminal Procedure Code’s Section 190(1)(b) governs reports made by police officers. The report could be one issuing a challenge to the suspect, or it could be an “Iktami,” or deferred charge-sheet. It is a police officer report, nonetheless. Taking cognizance entails paying attention to the reported facts and then moving on with the case in accordance with the pertinent Criminal Procedure Code articles. As a result, the learned Magistrate did not err in committing the offense in accordance with Section 190(1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code although he could have acted under 190(1) (c) in an appropriate case.
The prosecuting sub-inspector does not always handle cases that the police challenge. The prosecution will still be carried out by the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector assigned to the court of the Magistrate in a case that may be brought by the court, for example, for an offense under Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code. So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise if the prosecuting sub-inspector is asked to handle a case where the police aren’t involved. Therefore, asking the police to post a challan in a situation where the police has stated a different position is not something the magistrate is allowed to do indirectly.
The Hon’ble judge therefore dismissed both the revision petitions since they both lacked substance.
CONCLUSION
This case paves way to a better understanding of when the magistrate can take cognizance of offences. The case also takes us into a deeper understanding and interpretation of Section 173, 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An insight into the maintainability of revision petitions can also be gained by the case.
References:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1469980/
Written by KAUSHAL S S, 3rd SEM, School of legal studies, REVA University. Intern at Legal Vidhiya
