DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DARSHAN Singh petitioner has applied under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing First Information Report No. 61, dated 29th April, 1983, recorded at Police Station, Saddar, Ropar, against him under sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes. (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The impugned first information report is as follows :-

(2.) IN order to appreciate this Petition, the relevant provisions of the Act need to be noticed. The terms "prize chit" has been defined in section 2 clause (c) of the Act in the following terms :-

(3.) IT was held by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 61, that under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Police investigation can be commenced only if the First Information Report prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Where such offence is not disclosed, the Court will be justified in interfering with the investigation and quashing the same. In the present case the impugned First Information Report doe's not disclose commission of an offence and only a vague allegation has been made that the three schemes of the petitioner fall within the ambit of Section 2 (c) (i) of the Act. An allegation of this nature certainly cannot be considered to prima facie disclose the commission of an offence under Section 2 (c) (i) of the Act. It is observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that the Police do not have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure. Their right of enquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the First Information Report, prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on and the Court will have no power to stop the same. On the other hand, if the First Information Report does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court could be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information. In the present case the impugned First Information Report does not allege facts disclosing that the petitioner is giving or awarding periodical or otherwise to a specified number of subscribers as determined by lot draw or in any other manner prizes or gifts in cash or in kind whether or not the recipient of the prize is under a liability to make any further payment in respect of such scheme or arrangement. Since the First information does not disclose that the essential requirements of Section 2 (e) (i) of the Act are, prima facie, satisfied, it cannot be said in the absence of allegation whatsoever in that behalf that there is reason to suspect the commission of the offence within the meaning of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to justify the investigation undertaken by the authorities.