PORINCHU T K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused in Crime No.880 of 2010 of Cherppu Police Station and S.T.No.6621 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur praying that Annexure- IV, final report and further proceeding in S.T.No.6621 of 2010 may be quashed for the reasons stated in this criminal miscellaneous case. Learned counsel submitted that offences under Secs.184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, "the Act") charged against petitioner are non-cognizable in character and hence the police could not have registered a case under Sec.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") as if the offences are cognizable in character, conduct investigation and submit a final report under Sec.173(2) of the Code. Learned counsel invited my attention to the decision of this Court dated March 30, 2011 in Crl.M.C.No.702 of 2011. It is also contended that blood test as required under Secs.185 and 203 of the Act has not been conducted and hence offence under Sec.185 of the Act cannot stand.

(2.) IT is seen from Annexure-1, FIR that police has registered a case for offences under Secs.184 or 185 of the Act. The suo moto report of detecting officer (officer in charge of the Police Station) is that on 03.11.2010 at about 9.30p.m while on patrol duty he found petitioner riding a motor bike in an "irregular manner", intercepted petitioner and questioned him. On questioning the Sub Inspector was convinced that petitioner has consumed liquor. Thereon, he was arrested and the vehicle was seized. IT is also stated that he was subjected to medical examination. Thereafter a case was registered for offences under Secs.184 and 185 of the Act. This Court in the decision referred supra has held that notwithstanding the limited power for arrest given to the officer in uniform in the circumstances stated in Secs.202 and 203 of the Act when an offence under Secs.184 and/or 185 of the Act is committed, the said offences continued to be non-cognizable in character and on completion of medical examination or other purpose for which arrest is permitted, the detecting officer or the officer in charge of the police station to whom the incident is reported has to follow the procedure prescribed for investigation of a non-cognizable offence. This Court also found that in such circumstance the police could not straight away register a case as if the offences are cognizable in character, without permission of the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case as provided under Sec.155(2) of the Code. In the present case, it is seen that the police officer while registering the case was satisfied that only offences under Secs.184 and 185 of the Act (non-cognizable in character) were committed in which case he could have registered the case, investigated and submited a final report only on getting permission from the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case as provided under Sec.155(2) of the Code. Since that provision has not been complied, registration of the case, investigation and submission of final report are not legal. IT follows that cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the said final report is also illegal.