N. G. SHELAT, J. ( 1 ) A short yet an interesting question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the statement Ex. 13 of the accused which came to be recorded by Mr. Erulkar the Police Officer giving out information therein about his having given illegal gratification to the extent of Rs. 200/to Mr. Desai Superintendent of Excise was a statement falling within the ambit of sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and if so whether the same can be made the basis of a complaint against him for an offence under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this prosecution are quite simple. The accused happened to be the proprietor of Rajkamal Stores situated in Bhadra in the City of Ahmedabad. The premises of the Stores were raided on 13-10-1962 by Mr. Ishvarlal Chhotubhai Desai the Superintendent Prohibition and Excise with the assistance of other officers and on a search carried out various articles were seized. Some of those articles were in the nature of bottles containing Eau-de-cologne Tincture Hemidesni Kawath etc. Though they were attached samples therefrom were not given to the accused. Some time after one Chaturbhuj B. Acharya of Ahmedabad sent an application to Shri Medh Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption Bureau Ahmedabad inter alia stating that Mr. Desai had colluded with the accused and had deliberately not given samples to the accused in contravention of the circular issued by the Director of Prohibition and Excise so as to enable the accused to escape from the consequences of his being ill unlawful possession of alcoholic preparations. That application was received on 13-12-62 by Mr. Medh. Mr. Medh thereupon directed Mr. Erulkar the P. S. I. to make an inquiry. While making inquiry Mr. Erulkar recorded the statement of the accused on 3-1-1963. That statement is Ex. 13 and it contained some allegations against Mr. Desai. The material allegation in respect of which this action is taken against him is that on 13-10-62 when this Rajkamal Stores was raided and various articles seized therefrom by Mr. Desai and others Mr. Desai had put him in fear and demanded some bribe from him. On his giving assurance that in future he will not be harassed he gave a sum of Rs. 200/by way of illegal gratification to Mr. Desai. Desai and others Mr. Desai had put him in fear and demanded some bribe from him. On his giving assurance that in future he will not be harassed he gave a sum of Rs. 200/by way of illegal gratification to Mr. Desai. That statement bore the signature of the accused. Finding the allegations of a very serious character against a high official such as Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise Mr. Erulkar told Mr. Medh that he cannot make further inquiry. Consequently Mr. Medh directed one Mr. Rana to make further inquiry in respect thereof. That inquiry was carried out and a report was submitted by M. Rana. In his view the allegations made against Mr. Desai by this accused were false and that he should be prosecuted for an offence under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of teat report it appears that the complaint against Shri Chaturbhuj as also against this accused was filed. Since there arose some technical defect the case against this accused was separated and after the trial was over the accused in that case namely Chaturbhuj B. Acharya was acquitted. The judgment thereof is produced in the case. It is dated 20-10-66. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER Mr. Medh filed a complaint against this accused in the Court of the City Magistrate 5 Court Ahmedabad for the same offence under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the same allegations made by him in his statement of 3-1-63 before the P. S. I. Erulkar of the Anti-Corruption Bureau against Mr. Desai since they were found to be false. To that charge leveled against him the accused denied to have committed any offence. He however admitted about his having given a statement on 3-1-63 before P. S. I. Erulkar wherein those allegations against Mr. Desai were made. But according to him the statement was not read over to him and that he had recorded in any manner as he chose. He has led no evidence in defence. The learned Magistrate after considering the effect of the evidence adduced in the case found that the allegations made by the accused were false and that he must be presumed to have had knowledge that the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau would be induced to make inquiries into the matter and that it would lend Mr. Desai in serious trouble. The learned Magistrate after considering the effect of the evidence adduced in the case found that the allegations made by the accused were false and that he must be presumed to have had knowledge that the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau would be induced to make inquiries into the matter and that it would lend Mr. Desai in serious trouble. He therefore found the accused guilty for an offence under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 months. Feeling dissatisfied with that order passed on 28-2-1967 by Mr. N. K. Tatia City Magistrate 5 Court Ahmedabad the accused has come in appeal. ( 4 ) THE fact about Mr. Erulkar having recorded a statement of the accused on 3-1-63 as also about the same containing serious allegations against Mr. Desai about his having been paid Rs. 200/by way of illegal gratification is not in dispute. The falsity thereof or the purpose with which the same is said to have been made is also not challenged before this Court. The contention however raised by Mr. Batubhai Desai the learned advocate for the appellant-accused is that this statement falls within the ambit of the provisions contained in sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and when that is so it cannot be used for any purpose other than contemplated therein so as to make the same-7as a basis for the prosecution of the accused under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him the statement could have been either recorded while making an inquiry or investigation in respect of any complaint relating to either a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence. Since the offence in respect of which the inquiry was put in action was in the nature of a cognizable offence namely the offence failing under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code or so the statement of the accused recorded during the course of that inquiry falls within sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since the offence in respect of which the inquiry was put in action was in the nature of a cognizable offence namely the offence failing under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code or so the statement of the accused recorded during the course of that inquiry falls within sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If it related to any non-cognizable offence the permission of the Magistrate was essential to be obtained before investigating into the same and since no such permission was obtained the P. S. I. had no authority to record any statement of the accused under sec. 155 (2) of the Code. In any view of the case therefore it was contended that this was not a complaint or information as such under sec. 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to be the basis of an action under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code if it is found to be false. But if it was in pursuance of any further inquiry or investigation in relation thereto the recording of the statement of such person would be under secs. 160 and 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that would fall under sec. 162 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the other hand it was urged by Mr. Chhaya that it was in the nature of a preliminary inquiry that Mr. Erulkar was directed to make on receipt of some application from one Shri Chaturbhuj and that a direction given to him was to make a preliminary inquiry before registering an offence and if any statement was recorded in relation to any such inquiry it would not fall under sec. 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to him it will be falling under sec. 64 (b) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 as applied to the State of Gujarat. ( 5 ) FROM the evidence of Mr. Erulkar it appears that Shri Medh had forwarded an application which he had received from one Chaturbhuj Acharya by his letter No. 4065 of 27-12-62 for making an inquiry. That application is not proved by examining him and consequently is not exhibited in the case. It cannot therefore be taken as a part of record in the case. Now Mr. Erulkar has averred that in that application which was sent to him for inquiry the main allegation against Mr. That application is not proved by examining him and consequently is not exhibited in the case. It cannot therefore be taken as a part of record in the case. Now Mr. Erulkar has averred that in that application which was sent to him for inquiry the main allegation against Mr. Desai the Superintendent of Excise was that the accused Kantilal the proprietor of Rajkamal Provision Stores had given a sum of Rs. 200/by way of bribe to Mr. Desai and that he had accepted the same at the time when his Stores was raided by Mr. Desai on 13-10-62. Thus he was required to make an inquiry with regard to the accusation of this character against Mr. Desai made by a third party in his application dated 11-12-62. These allegations obviously relate to an offence falling under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and such an offence is a cognizable one. It was pointed out by Mr. Chhaya the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the respondent-State that the application does not clearly state about the accused having paid Rs. 200/by way of bribe to Mr. Desai and all that it refers to is that while carrying out the raid of the Rajkamal Provision Stores belonging to the accused he had colluded with him and while seizing those goods he had not given the samples thereof and thereby keeping deliberately a loophole the advantage whereof can be obtained by the accused in the event of any prosecution that may be launched against him in respect thereof. In other words it refers to Mr. Desai having not acted according to law in the search carried out by him in that he had acted in collusion with the accused in respect thereof. In face of the evidence of Mr. Erulkar it is not proper to look at any such complaint which has not been proved and consequently not exhibited in the case. At any rate on 27-12-62 when he was asked to make an inquiry he had in his possession the information about Mr. Desai the Superintendent of Excise having committed an offence under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and that it was in that connection that the inquiry was directed to be made. It was that way that he went to the place of the accused and recorded his statement marked Ex. Desai the Superintendent of Excise having committed an offence under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and that it was in that connection that the inquiry was directed to be made. It was that way that he went to the place of the accused and recorded his statement marked Ex. 13 on 3-1-63 wherein those allegations have been made by him against Mr. Desai. This statement covers about 5 or 6 pages and it bears the signature of the accused. The further inquiry in this regard was carried out by Mr. Rana who had also recorded statements of various persons and ultimately in his view the allegations made by the accused in the statement of 3-1-63 were found to be false and that the action against him under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code was recommended. ( 6 ) THE question therefore is as to under what provision of law Mr. Erulkar the P. S. I. had recorded the statement of the accused in this case. Mr. Erulkar was asked as to under what provision of law he had made the inquiry in which he recorded the statement of this accused and to that his reply is that he cannot say. The inquiry in respect of any offence can be made by a police officer in case it relates to either a cognizable or a non-cognizable offence as contemplated in Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. Now Mr. Erulkar has however admitted that no order of the Magistrate was taken before initiating this inquiry If the inquiry was in respect of any non-cognizable offence the permission of the Magistrate was necessary to be obtained by him under sec. 155 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As provided therein no police-officer can investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate of the first or second class having power to try such case or commit the same for trial or of a Presidency Magistrate. No such permission was at all obtained. ( 7 ) THE police officer Mr. Erulkar therefore could only have the authority to inquire or investigate into the commission of a cognizable offence under the provisions contained in Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. No such permission was at all obtained. ( 7 ) THE police officer Mr. Erulkar therefore could only have the authority to inquire or investigate into the commission of a cognizable offence under the provisions contained in Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sec. 154 of the Code provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of a police-station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Any information given therefore which relates to the commission of a cognizable offence puts the law in motion and that entitles the police officer to exercise his authority and powers if he proceeds to inquire or investigates into the same. It makes no difference whether that information was reduced to writing or not at that particular stage. That may be an irregularity committed but the fact remains that the authority and power to inquire and investigate into any such allegations amounting to a cognizable offence begins. His action in so doing commences the inquiry or investigation as the case may be. Then comes sec. 155 and sub-sec. (1) thereof relates to information into non-cognizable cases and the investigation in respect thereof. In that event the police officer may have to enter the information a book kept for the said purpose and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Sub-sec. (2) is already referred to and need not be repeated. Sub-sec. (3) thereof then says that any police-officer receiving such order from a Magistrate may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police-station may exercise in a cognizable case. Sec. 156 relates to investigation into cognizable eases and as provided in sub-sec. Sub-sec. (3) thereof then says that any police-officer receiving such order from a Magistrate may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police-station may exercise in a cognizable case. Sec. 156 relates to investigation into cognizable eases and as provided in sub-sec. (1) thereof any officer in charge of a police-station may without the order of a Magistrate investigate any cognizable cases which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial and sub-sec. (2) thereof says that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. Then sec. 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for procedure where cognizable offence is suspected. If from information received or otherwise an officer in charge of a police-station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under sec. 156 to investigate he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police-report and shall proceed in person or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may by general or special order prescribe in this behalf to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Then there is a proviso thereto with which we are not much concerned. In other words this section also empowers the police officer in charge of a police station to investigate any information received from which he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate. It may be stated here that if the application of Mr. Chaturbhuj Acharya did not actually disclose the material allegation about Mr. Desai having received illegal gratification of Rs. 200/from the complainant for a particular purpose the allegation did amount to his having acted unlawfully in carrying out the search of his premises by colluding with the accused. It may be stated here that if the application of Mr. Chaturbhuj Acharya did not actually disclose the material allegation about Mr. Desai having received illegal gratification of Rs. 200/from the complainant for a particular purpose the allegation did amount to his having acted unlawfully in carrying out the search of his premises by colluding with the accused. That would certainly give reason to suspect that there has been a commission of an offence of that character either by the accused or by Mr. Desai or by both of them and that therefore they had the authority to investigate into the same. There after leaving secs. 158 and 159 which have reference more or less to the proviso to sec. 157and sub-sec. (2) thereof we go to sec. 160 whereby the police officer making an investigation under this Chapter has been given a power to require attendance of witnesses. As provided therein he can require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who from the information given or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case and such person shall attend as so required. Then after securing the presence a police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case as provided in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 161. Sub-sec. (2) thereof then says that such person is bound to answer all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. Sub-sec. (3) then says that the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section and if he does so he shall make a separate record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. It would appear therefrom that he can examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts in the circumstances of the case and any such person will be bound to answer the same but the police officer may at the same time reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section. Then comes the material sec. Then comes the material sec. 162 which runs thus:-162 (1) No statement made by any person to a police-officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall if reduced into writing be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof whether in a police diary or otherwise or any part of such statement or record be used for any purpose (save as hereinafter provided) at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:- provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid any part of his statement if duly proved may be used by the accused and with the permission of the Court by the prosecution to contradict such witness in the manner provided by sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and when any part of such statement is so used any part thereof may also be used in the re examination of such witness but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of sec. 32 clause (1) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 or to affect the provisions of sec. 27 of that Act. It would appear therefrom that such a statement if reduced to writing shall not be signed by the person making it and then it says that any such statement or any part of such statement shall not be used for any purpose save as hereinafter provided at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made and the proviso thereto says that such a statement may be used by the accused with the permission of the Court under sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. It makes abundantly clear that such a statement if reduced to writing or any part thereof recorded by a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall not be used for any purpose other than for contradicting the witness as contemplated in the proviso thereto. It follows therefrom that if the statement in question before the Court is found to be one recorded under sec. It follows therefrom that if the statement in question before the Court is found to be one recorded under sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code it cannot be used for any purpose other than the one contemplated under sec. 162 and that being so it cannot be made the basis of the complaint under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 8 ) NOW sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code refers to giving of false information with intention to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. It provides as under:-182 Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause such public servant (A) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any personshall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine-which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. THUS giving of any information for any such purpose mentioned in sec. 182 can only be one falling under sec. 154 for it is that information which leads the police to make an inquiry or investigation in relation to the allegations made therein and that can be done by the police station officer under the provisions contained in Chapter XIV of the Code having regard to the fact that it relates to a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence or some offence that he has reason to suspect as contemplated under sec. 157 of the Code. Any subsequent statement in the further inquiry or investigation of any such information already received in my view cannot be the basis of any offence falling under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard I was referred to a decision in the case of Sudarsan Brahmbhatt v. Emperor reported in (1947) 43 Cri. L. J. 264 The relevant observations in respect of which the reliance was placed run thus:-UNDER sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard I was referred to a decision in the case of Sudarsan Brahmbhatt v. Emperor reported in (1947) 43 Cri. L. J. 264 The relevant observations in respect of which the reliance was placed run thus:-UNDER sec. 182 the information which is penalised is an information which is intended to cause or known to be likely to cause the public servant concerned to take action in one of the ways specified in the section. Here information within this meaning had already been given and the law had already been set in motion Further statements made in the course of the investigation would not to my mind be further information in this sense. In other words any further information in any of such statements recorded after the information was received which set the criminal law in motion cannot be said to be such information which is sought to be penalised under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The machinery was already set in motion and inquiry was set against him. It made no difference whether the offence was registered or not for the simple reason that even such inquiry or investigation may not make much of a difference. The term inquiry has been defined in sec. 4 (k) of the Criminal Procedure Code as including every enquiry other than a trial conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court and the term investigation has been defined in sec. 4 (1) as including all the proceedings for the collection of evidence conducted by a police-officer or by any person other than a Magistrate who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. In any view of the matter where in the nature of an inquiry or an investigation in pursuance of an application received by Mr. Medh recording of any statement by Mr. Erulkar of the accused was one under the powers derived by him under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code and the statement recorded would thus in my view fall within the ambit of sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 9 ) MR. Chhaya the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader invited reference to sec. 64 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 and sought support for such a statement falling within the ambit of clause (b) thereof. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 9 ) MR. Chhaya the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader invited reference to sec. 64 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 and sought support for such a statement falling within the ambit of clause (b) thereof. Sec. 64 provides as under:-64 It shall be the duty of every police officer:- (a) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (b) to the best of his ability to obtain intelligence concerning the commission of cognizable offences or designs to commit such offences and to lay such information and to take such other steps consistent with law and with the orders of his superiors as shall be best calculated to bring offenders to justice or to prevent the commission of cognizable and within his view of non-cognizable offenders; xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx. THIS provision sets out the duties of a police officer. Now his duty is to obtain intelligence concerning the commission of cognizable offences or designs to commit such offences and to lay such information before the superior officers for preventing any commission of such offences. This section does not refer to any authority or power given to a police officer to obtain or record statements of persons in respect of any such cognizable offences. There is hardly any doubt in the present case that Mr. Erulkar was exercising his power and authority under the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Code. It was for the purpose of making an inquiry or investigation as it were in respect of information already received from Mr. Chaturbhuj Acharya against Mr. Desai in respect of a cognizable offence that he had recorded the statement of the accused. The recording of such a statement of the accused on 3-1-63 cannot therefore be made the subject-matter of charge against the maker thereof under sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The term `information contemplated therein is the first information which leads the police to take action against any such person and the subsequent recording or collecting of evidence or any such statement cannot come within the ambit of sec. 182 of the Indian Penal Code for in that event the purpose or intention behind the giving of such information cannot be attributed to him. 182 of the Indian Penal Code for in that event the purpose or intention behind the giving of such information cannot be attributed to him. ( 10 ) IN the result therefore the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellant is set aside and the accused is acquitted. The fine if paid. is directed to be refunded to him. .