DHIRENDRA NATH GHOSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point raised in this Rule against an order of conviction and sentence of the Petitioner under Sections 457 and 380. Indian Penal Code, is that the cognizance of the case was not legally taken by the learned Magistrate. It appears that on investigation the officer in charge of the thana, submitted a report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, that the case was false. Thereafter further enquiry was made into the matter by the Circle Inspector of Police and he sent to the Magistrate on May 29, 1955, a letter in which he stated among other tailings that there was evidence forthcoming showing that the accused Dhirendra Nath Ghose had committed the offence alleged and that he recommended that he should be tried. It was on this that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the learned Magistrate was not entitled in law to take cognizance of the case on this. In our judgment there is no substance in this contention. Section 190(1)(6), Code of Criminal Procedure, provides that a Sub divisional Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence upon a report in writing of facts constituting an offence made by any police officer. Even though the letter of the Circle Inspector was not a report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, it is in our opinion clearly a report of facts constituting an offence of theft. It was in writing and it was made by a police officer. The requirements of law are thereby fulfilled. We are unable to accept the contention by the learned advocate that as this report was one under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was an act without jurisdiction.

(3.) The Rule is accordingly discharged.