NARENDRA NATH SAMANTA Vs. ASHUTOSH PAIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party no. 1 filled a complaint before a competent Magistrate which was sent to the police for investigation under section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and ultimately a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners upon which the learned Magistrate took cognizance and a charge was framed against the petitioners under section 143/379 Penal Code. After the examination-in-chief of the opposite party no. 1 as P.W. 1, the petitioners made an application before the learned Magistrate to drop the proceeding on the ground that the charge sheet submitted by the police did not disclose the nature of the information as required by section 173(2)(i)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but merely stated that the fact of the case was noted in the First Information Report. It was, therefore contended before the learned Magistrate that the charge sheet did not conform to the requirement of law and as such cognizance could not be validly take upon it. Accepting this contention, the learned Magistrate held that the charge sheet was improper and bad in law and as such the case could not continue. He, therefore, dropped the proceeding and released the petitioners from their bail bond. The opposite party no. 1 moved the learned Sessions Judge in revision against this order who reversed the finding of the learned Magistrate and held, inter alia, that cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate could not be said to be bad in law. The petitioners have come up in revision against this order.

(2.) There is no doubt that the report in final form submitted by the police after investigation is supposed to contain the nature of the information as required by section 173(2)(i)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and it is not enough to state that facts of the case are noted in the First Information Report. The real question, however, is whether such omission and a statement render the charge sheet bad in law as held by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners contend that it is so and rely upon the decision of the Bombay High Court In re : Shivlingappa Bhagappa 1930 31 Cr. LJ 1142 . In that case Their Lordships held that a Magistrate could not take cognizance of offence upon a police charge sheet which did not contain the facts which constituted the offence. In that case also the nature of the information was not stated in the charge sheet and in such situation the cognizance purported to have been taken under section 190(1) (b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was held to be bad because facts constituting the alleged offence were missing. This decision was given as noted above looking to the relevant provisions of the C,ode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and need not be regarded as an authority for the proposition it lays down in cases covered by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which has introduced a substantial and material change in this regard. Reference may be made to the provision of section 173(5), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires the police officer to forward to the Magistrate along with the report in the final form, all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposed to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation and the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposed to examine as its witnesses. There was no provision in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, corresponding to section 173(5), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and at the present moment report in the final form means not merely the charge sheet but also includes the documents forwarded therewith under section 173 (5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It is upon such a report that a Magistrate takes cognizance under section 190(1)(b) of the said Code if the facts disclosed therein constitute any offence. Therefore such facts may appear not only from the charge sheet but also from the accompanying documents and so it is not correct to say that a cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad if the nature of the information is not stated in the charge sheet. It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court in Satyanarain Musadi & ors. Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 506 has observed that with the introduction of section 173 in its present form the entire complexion of what should normally be styled as a report submitted under section 173 (2) of the Code has undergone a change and the court can look at the report along with its accompaniments for taking cognizance of the offence. In view of such clear pronouncement by the Supreme Court there is little room to doubt that omission to state the nature of the information in a charge sheet submitted by the police will not sustain an argument that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was illegal, if the documents submitted by the charge sheet revealed facts constituting an offence. In the instant case the petitioners seek to strike down the proceeding solely on the ground that the nature of the information was not disclosed in the charge sheet and it was never urged that even the accompanying documents did not reveal facts constituting an offence.

(3.) For reasons stated above it must be held that the learned Judge has rightly found that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate could not be said to be bad and, therefore, the Rule is discharged. Record be sent down at once and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the proceeding with utmost expedition. Rule discharged.