VRAJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A.

(2.) The first contention urged on behalf of the applicant is that under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act of 1932, cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7 thereof is barred, except upon a report in writing made by a police officer not below the rank of Officer-In-Charge of a police station. But, the police officer, who submitted the charge sheet was one Ram Sewak Yadav, S.I. of the P.S. concerned, who was not an Officer In-charge, thus no cognizance could be taken on a charge sheet filed by an incompetent person. The second contention was that considering the nature of the allegations made in the FIR/ police report, prosecution for an offence under Section 188 IPC was barred in view of the embargo laid under Section 195 (1) CrPC, i.e. no Court shall take cognizance except on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned and as other offences, i.e. Sections 147 and 353 IPC are fall out of principal offence, i.e. Section 188 IPC, thus they too cannot be proceeded with.

(3.) Repudiating the aforesaid submissions, learned A.G.A, submitted that in view of the very definition of the word "officer In-charge" as contained in Section 2(o) of the CrPc, the S.I, too in certain contingencies was competent to lay a police report/ charge sheet in respect of an offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1932. He submitted in all fairness, that in so far prosecution under Section 188 IPC is concerned, same would be barred in view of the prohibition contained in Section 195(1) CrPC, but further contended that in so far Section 147/353 IPC are concerned, same being functionally and qualitatively different from an offence under Section 188 IPC, prosecution of the applicant in respect of said offences, i.e. Sections 147/ 353 IPC would not be barred.