STATE Vs. RAGHUNAUDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four criminal references raise an identical point and are reported by the District Magistrate, Bundi, who recommends that the order of the Munsiff Magistrate, Bundi dated 28th June, 1961, in all the four cases be set aside. I propose to dispose all of them by this order.

(2.) THE circumstances in which these references arise are : THE Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Department of the State of Rajasthan, Bundi, lodged a first information report with Sub-Inspector Police, Keshorai Patan, that in the course of the informants departmental inspection it was discovered that certain sums of money received for Sahkari Samitis were neither credited to the funds of the Sahkari Samitis nor applied for the purposes for which they were received and he therefore requested for appropriate action. After investigation a report was submitted by Police Station Keshorai Patan under secs. 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the First Class Magistrate, Bundi, which report by transfer travelled to the Munsiff Magistrate, Bundi for trial. An objection was raised before him that the report made by the Police under secs. 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was on the basis of an investigation which the police made of non-cognizable offences without any order from a Magistrate as required by sec. 155 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was urged on behalf of the accused that either cognizance only of the offence under sec. 420 I. P. C. be taken or the case be returned to the police after necessary order for a fresh investigation. THE Munsiff-Magistrate observed that want of a prior order from a Magistrate for investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the court. He took cognizance of the offences under sec. 468 and 471 I. P. C. pursuant to the provisions of sec. 190 (l) (a) Cr. P. C. He, however, held that because the offences under sec. 468 and 471 I. P. C. were graver in nature and because he had taken cognizance of these offences under sec. 190 (1) (a) Cr. P. C. the procedure which he proposed to adopt for the trial was as provided for an ordinary complaint under sec. 252 and onwards of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under sec. 251a of the Code. Dissatisfied with this order passed by the Magistrate on 28th June, 1961, the prosecution presented a revision application before the District Magistrate, Bundi, who has recommended that the order of the Munsiff-Magistrate be set aside.