CHINNAMMAL Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHINNAMMAL , the Petitioner herein, stood charged before the Bench of Magistrates, Saida -pet for an offence under Section 75 of the City Police Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The complainant was absent on 12th May, 1970. The Magistrate stopped further proceedings under Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Petitioner contends that the case against her is of a non -cognisable offence, and that when the complainant was absent, the Magistrate should have acquitted her under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) UNDER Clause (1) of Section 24 of the Madras City Police Act, any police officer may arrest without a warrant any person committing in his view any offence made punishable by the said Act. "Cognisable offence" as defined in Clause (f) of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, means an offence for, and cognisable case means a case in which a police officer within or without the presidency towns may, in accordance with the second schedule or under any law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. The offence explained of in this case has been committed in the presence of a police officer and as such is an offense in which he can arrest without a warrant. The Head Constable had personally seen the commission of the offence and had sent a report to the court. On his report the Court has taken cognisance under Clause (b) of Section 190 (1). Therefore, this is not a case where summons has been issued on a complaint, so as to attract Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 249 relates to cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint. This is such a case. Therefore, the Magistrates have correctly stopped the proceedings under Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code.