BADARMAL Vs. ROSHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision applications before me raise a short question though, by no means, an easy one about the mode of proceeding where the Magistrate does not accept the final report made by the police under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code and takes cognizance of the offence by not agreeing to the final report.

(2.) ON 9-7-67, one Roshanlal lodged information with the police station Doongla against the 8 accused petitioners alleging that they had committed an offence of rioting. On this report the police registered a case against all the accused for the offence under Section 147 Criminal Procedure Code and investigated the matter. On 15-1-68 the police submitted a final report in the case to the Munsif Magistrate, Doongla, under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that there was no case for putting up a challan. Roshanlal then filed a protest petition. On consideration of the facts found in the final report and after hearing the prosecuting Sub-Inspector and the counsel for Roshanlal the learned Magistrate formed the opinion that the facts set out in the final report constituted offences under Sections 147, 452 and 323 Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, therefore, took cognizance of the said offences and issued processes against the accused. He called upon the police to produce the documents referred to in Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code and directed the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector to conduct the case. Against this order of the learned Magistrate the prosecution filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge which was No. 38 of 1968. The accused persons also presented another revision application on 17-668 contending that the final report having not been accepted the Magistrate should be treated to have taken cognizance on a complaint and consequently the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector could not have been asked to conduct the prosecution. According to the accused the case has to proceed as a complaint case in accordance with Section 252 Criminal Procedure Code and not as a case on a police report under Section 251-A Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there was no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is in these circumstances that the accused have filed these two revision applications.

(3.) IN revision application No. 216 of 1969 it is urged that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence taking a view contrary to the final report made by the police. The contention raised in the other revision is that the learned Magistrate was required to proceed with the case as a complaint case in accordance with Section 252 Criminal Procedure Code.