REV FR ANTONY Vs. V MARIARPUDHOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the 1st accused in C. C. No. 70 of 1958 on the file of the District) Magistrate's Court, Kottayam. He is the Editor of 'Deepika' a Malayalam daily published from Kottayam. He along with the Printer and Publisher of the paper who is the 2nd accused, was proceeded against under Section 34(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act (V of 1950) read with Section 117, I. P. C. The proceedings were initiated by a complaint filed by the District Superintendent of Police, Kottayam. The gist of the complaint is that the accused published in the "Deepika" dated 14-8-1958 a leading article under the caption ''Sankatakaravayapatam" with the intention of instigating and inciting the public to commit offences involving criminal force and violence against the officers of Government. The Government sanction necessary to institute the complaint as well as the authorisation in favour of the District Superintendent of Police were also produced. The schedule of witnesses was also filed. The court took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused. They entered appearance and were released on bail and exempted from personal appearance. The Editor who is the Revision Petitioner then objected to the initiation of the proceedings against him by a mere complaint of the District Superintendent of Police and urged that the complaint should be dismissed. The main contentions of the petitioner were (i) that the offences mentioned in the complaint being cognizable the District Superintendent of Police who got information about it was bound to follow the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code and to file a report after the necessary investigation and that the failure to do so involves a violation of Section 5 Clauses 1 and 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code and (ii) as the case was not instituted on a police report the benefits of a trial under Section 251 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code were denied to the accused. These as well as Some other objections which were not pressed before us were repelled by the learned District Magistrate. This Revision Petition is against the order dismissing the objection.

(2.) The first point to be considered is whether the offence under Section 34(1) of the Public Safety Measures Act being cognizable it was wrong to have initiated the proceedings against the accused by a mere complaint to the Magistrate by a Police Officer instead of filing a report before the Magistrate after due investigation under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code must necessarily precede the initiation of the proceedings against a person who is alleged to have committed a cognizable offence. In this connection the learned counsel has brought to our notice certain observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 196. That was a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the validity of the trial was challenged on the ground of the violation of the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Act, which enjoins that certain offences shall not be investigated by a police officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police except under orders of a Magistrate of the First Class. In considering the question whether the above provision was directory or mandatory their Lordships observed--

(3.) The Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence in three ways. Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code which empowers Magistrates to take cognizance provides;