GANGA PRASAD ML A AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 610-A of 1974 State v. Ganga Pd. and others pending in the court of Sri D. V. Sharma, First Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Elah. In this case a first information report was lodged and investigation was made by a Sub-Inspector of Police, who submitted a final report un­der section 169, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate, however instead of accepting the final report, passed the following order on 17-7-1974: "Let accused be summoned for 27-9-1974 under section s 147, 323, 452 and 352, I.P.C." There is no dispute on the point that the Magistrate had not taken cognizance under section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. but had taken cognizance under section 190 (1)(c) of the Code.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has argued that it was not open under the new Cr. P. C. to take cognizance by the Magistrate under section 190 (1) (c) on the basis of police papers and final report as the word 'suspicion' which occurred in section 190 (1) (c), Cr. P. C. (Old) has been deleted Section 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. (Mew) reads as follows:

(3.) SHRI Tejpal, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued on the basis of these observations that the Sup­reme Court obviously said that cognizance could have been taken on suspicion when the police papers and the final report were before the Magistrate and that is why the Supreme Court had used the word 'suspect'. According to him, after the word 'suspicion' has been delet­ed from clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 190, Cr. P. C., it is not open to the Magistrate to take cognizance on the basis of the police papers and the final report. In the present case, it is alleged that there was no protest petition and no other information before the Magistrate apart from the police papers and the final report. Sri Sushil Kumar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, has conceded that cognizance in the present case was not taken upon information received from any person other than the police officer. He has argued that in the present case it could be said that the Magistrate had taken cognizance upon his own know­ledge derived from the police papers and the final report which were before him. According to him, 'own knowledge' is wider than 'personal knowledge' and it includes 'knowledge' derived from documents. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the case of Dwarika Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Kanpur (A.I.R.1966 S.C. 81) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court made the following observations while considering the words 'own knowledge' in the context of swearing of affidavits: