C S PAVITHRAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sub Inspector of Police filed a petty case charge against the petitioner alleging offence under S.290 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation, in short, was that the petitioner, who is the owner of a motor workshop was found repairing two vehicles on the public road in front of his workshop at 10.40 p.m. and the sound produced by the repair work caused public nuisance to persons living in the locality. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of this petty case. When the petitioner appeared before court learned Magistrate read out the particulars of the offence and asked whether he pleads guilty or not. Petitioner denied the charge. Thereupon two witnesses were examined as P.Ws 1 and 2. Sub Inspector gave evidence as P.W.3. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence under S.290 of the Indian Penal Code. He was thereupon sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Petitioner challenged this conviction and sentence in appeal without success. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) Apart from raising the plea that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below is perverse, learned counsel representing the petitioner contended that the trial of the case was vitiated on account of the non supply of the copies of the statements of witnesses questioned by police in the course of investigation. It is alleged that petitioner was seriously prejudiced on account of the failure in supplying the statements of witnesses. Consequently it is argued that the conviction and sentence may be quashed.

(3.) Offence charged against the petitioner is one under S.290 of the Penal Code. It is a non cognizable offence. The maximum punishment prescribed for this offence is fine of Rs. 200/-. When an officer in charge of a police station receives information about the commission of a non cognizable offence he will record the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the complainant to a Magistrate. No police officer shall investigate the case without an order of a Magistrate. Offence involved in the case being non cognizable, there could not be any investigation without an order of a competent Magistrate. So no report contemplated by S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as Code could have been filed either. Explanation to S.2(d) of the Code states that report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer shall be deemed to be the complainant. Therefore the report or complaint of "petty case charge sheet" submitted by a police cannot be considered as a police report falling under S.173 of the Code. It can be treated as a complaint only.