SATYA NARAIN MUSADI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether in view of the provision contained in Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, ('Act' for short), a Court taking cognizance of any offence punishable thereunder, upon a police report is precluded from looking into the complaint or first information report filed before the Court or that it must keep itself exclusively confined to the report submitted by the police, is a question raised in this appeal by special leave from a decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. Incontrovertible facts are that one Mahesh Kant Jha, presumably an Executive Magistrate at Jamtara in Santhal Parganas District of Bihar State, after a raid and search of the residential house in possession of appellant 1, submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamtara, complaining therein that appellant 1 contravened the provisions of the Bihar foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order 1967, and he may be proceeded against under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on receipt of this report made a cryptic order directing the report to be forwarded to the officer-in-charge of police station having jurisdiction in the area to take 'legal action'. On receipt of this report with the direction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the police officer, Jamtata, registered an offence and commenced investigation and on completion thereof submitted a report under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short), to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who had directed investigation in the matter. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on this report and transferred the case for disposal to Shri A. K. Sinha, Munsif Magistrate, First Class. The Munsif Magistrate recorded evidence of P.W. 1 Mahesh Kant Jha and on perusal of the evidence he was of the opinion that appellants 2 and 3 were also involved in the commission of the offence and took coginzance against them and directed the trial to commence de novo in presence of all the three appellants. The appellants thereupon moved the High Court under S. 482, Cr. P. C, invoking the inherent powers of the High Court to quash the prosecution on the only ground that the police report submitted by the investigating officer did not disclose any offence and the Court was not competent to look into any other paper while taking cognizance of the offence under S. 190, of the Code read with S. 11 of the Act.

(2.) When the matter came up before the learned single Judge of the Patna High Court, the learned Judge entertained a doubt in view of certain earlier decisions of the Patna High Court and a decision of this Court in Deokaran Das Aggarwal v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No, 38 of 1968 decided on 26-11-1968 whether while taking cognizance of an offence on a police report under S. 190 of the Code the Court can look into the first information report or the original complaint to fill in lacuna, if any, in the police report, and accordingly referred the matter to a Division Bench. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the doubt entertained by the learned single Judge may have to be resolved in an appropriate case but on the facts found in the case no doubt can arise because S. 11 of the Act is fully complied with when Mahesh Kant Jha submitted his report to the Sub-Divisional magistrate who took cognizance of it and directed investigation by the police in the matter.

(3.) Section 11 of the Act reads as under: