IN RE: PAKKIRISAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Venkataraman appearing for the two petitioners (A -2 and A -3) who have been convicted for offences under Sections 323 and 352, Indian Penal Code, assailed the convictions mainly on the ground that the investigation is vitiated by an illegality in that the requirements of Section 155 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, have not been complied with.

(2.) P .W. 6 the Sub -Inspector who appears to have earlier filed charge -sheets for offences under Sections 323 and 341, Indian Penal Code, after investigating the matter, referred the case. Thereafter, he seems to have filed petty case charge -sheets under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act. The trial Magistrate, finding the charge -sheets to be defective, returned them, and, by him memo dated 26th January, 1967, the Sub -Inspector ultimately modified them as those under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 190 (1) (b). It is on this chequered history of filing of the amended charge -sheets continuously that Mr. Venkataraman has grounded his main attack.

(3.) MR . Venkataraman cited the decision in Podan v. State of Kerala, (1962) 1 Cri. L. J. 339, to contend that Section 155 (2) expressly prohibits the investigation by the police suo motu of non -cognizable offences, that the order of a Magistrate is a condition precedent for such investigation, and that the irregularity cannot be cured under Section 537 as it results in failure of justice. I am in agreement with the observations of the learned Judge (Anna Chandy, J.) that a deliberate disregard of the prohibition under Section 155 (2) has to be deprecated, that the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are mean to be obeyed, and that the Police Officers are not allowed deliberately to contravene those provisions in the hope that the irregularities they commit will be cured under Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code. In the peculiar circumstances of the case the learned Judge found that the irregularity has resulted in the failure of justice, since the signed statement taken from the accused was used in evidence against him; Such a feature is not present in the present case.