TMI Blog1964 (9) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of a public servant as required by s. 11 of the essential Commodities Act, 1955. Learned City Magistrate of Secunderabad framed a change against him under s. 251(3) of the code of Criminal Procedure in respect of both the offences. The appellant then raised two preliminary abjections : the first was that as the commodity was obtained and disposed of at Bombay, the Court at Secunderabad had no jurisdiction to try him, This objection, which would have necessitated the recital of fact, has not been raised before us and it is not necessary to mention it again. The second objection was that as the police had filed a report under s. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, a trial of the offence under s. 7 could not be under s. 251 A but under s. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him, he must frame a charge in writing against the accused and after explaining it to him record his plea and proceed according to it. Under s. 252 Criminal Procedure Code, it is provided as follows :- 252 (1) In any case instituted otherwise than on a police report, when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, such Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complaint (if may) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution : Provided that the Magistrate shall not be bound to hear any person as complainant in any case in case in which the complaint has been made by a Court. (2) The Magistrate shall ascertain, from the complaint or otherwise, the names of any parsons likely to the acquainted with the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that under s. 190 cognizance of an offence is taken in different ways : (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute an offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such fact made by any officer; and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon the Magistrate's own knowledge or suspicion that such affiance has been committed. It is argued on the basis of this three-fold distinction that by the police report' in s. 190(1)(b) is meant the charge-sheet of the police officer under s. 173 of the Code, and since the report in writing which the police officer makes under s. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is not a charge-sheet under s. 173 of the Code it must be equated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he procedure under s. 252, Criminal Procedure Code, must be followed. We are thus concerned to find out whether the report of the police officer in writing in this case can be described as a complaint of fact or as information received from, any person other than a police officer. That it cannot be the latter is obvious enough because the information is from a police officer. The term complaint in this connection has been defined by the Code of Criminal Procedure and it means the 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 it does not include the report of a police officer. [See s. 4(1) (h)]. 6. It, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended that the report under s. 1 cannot be treated as a report under s. 173 but only as a complaint under s. 190(1)(a). The police offer was investigating under s. 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure an offence under s. 420. Indian Penal Code which was based on the same fact as the offence under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He investigated the latter offence along with the former and joined it with the former in the charge-sheet which he presented. 8. Section 156(2) provides that where a police officer enquires into an offence under s. 156(1) his action cannot be called into question on the ground that he was not empowered to investigate the offence. The enquiry was an integrated one, being based one the same set of fact. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort' in s. 190(1)(b) and held that those words were confined to a charge-sheet under s. 173 of the Code. We have pointed out above that in all those cases where the law requires a report in writing by a public servant the requirements of the law are satisfied when a report is filed by a public servant who is also a police officer. We have also pointed out that even in cases where the police officer cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without the permission of a Magistrate he is not prevented by anything in the Code from investigating a non-cognizable offence along with a cognizable offence when the two arise from the same facts. In the Calcutta case to which we have last referred, there was a provision (s. 20G) in the Opium Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
