STATE Vs. PRABHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition, preferred against the judgment of the lower Court, raises some legal issues. The facts of the case are that the police received information to the effect that the accused who was a teacher in the Kayasti Pathashala issued false and forged transfer certificates in lieu of some gratification to certain students purporting to show that they had passed in their examinations (though they had actually failed) and that they are eligible for admission to the higher standard. The transfer certificates for which they applied for, were required, as they wanted to enter and read in some other schools. The police, therefore, were of opinion that the accused had committed the offences mentioned in Sections 395 and 397 of the Hyderabad Penal Code corresponding to Sections 467 and 463 of the Indian Penal Code. As the offences were non-cognizable, the police wrote to the City Criminal Court for permission to investigate the offences under Section 156, Hyderabad Criminal P. C. corresponding to Section 155, I. Cr. P. C. The City Criminal Court ordered the police to investigate the case. The police had also written to Government for permission to investigate. That permission was also obtained. On the basis of the said orders, the Police investigated the ease against the accused and preferred four challans against him. Two of the challans were joined together in one case which is the subject-matter of consideration in case No. 479 of 1952 before us. The other two challans were preferred against him and they were tried together by the lower Court against which Revision No. 480 of 1952 has been preferred which is also before us for consideration today.

(2.) WE have heard the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties in both the revision cases, and this decision will govern both the cases. A copy of this be made a part of the record in the letter revision case.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate of the lower Court decided the cases on the ground that the institution of the charge-sheet was not proper and unauthorized because no permission was taken from Government, or the Magistrate to institute the charge. The point for decision therefore is whether after giving the order to the police to investigate the offence (being non-cognizable under Section 156, H. Cr. P. C.), the law requires that a fresh permission should be given by the Government or the Magistrate concerned for preferring a charge-sheet after considering the result of the investigation held by the police. The provisions of Sections 156 and 157, H. Cr. P. C. are the same as the provisions of Section 155, I. Cr. P. C. in it), it is laid down, that when information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission of a non-cognizable offence he shall enter in a book the substance of such in-formation and refer the informant to the Magistrate. It is further provided that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate of the 1st or 2nd class having power to try such case or commit, the same for trial. There is a further provision in the Hyderabad Code that Government may also issue such order empowering the police to investigate. Sub-section 3 of Section 155, I. Cr. P. C. which is equivalent to Sub-section 2 of Section 157, H. Cr. P. C. provides that a police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.