Judgment : The vexed question that of-confronts the criminal Court, namely, to what extent the trial that follows an investigation by a Police Officer in a non-cognizable offence without obtaining the orders of a Magistrate for such investigation is vitiated, is the subject-matter of this revision. 2. The first respondent-accused in this revision was convicted of an offence punishable under sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 10 under each of the charges by the learned Judicial First Glass Magistrate No. II, Tirunelveli. The accused was a wireman in the electricity department in Madurai Mills, Vikramasingapuram. The Mill authorities were running a canteen and were selling printed coupons used in the canteen through the Co-operative Stores to the workers. It was found that P.W.2 was also selling such coupons. The coupons printed by the company are available only in the stores and in the canteen. The coupons which P.W.2 was selling were given to him by P.W. 3, Esakki, a co-worker. There was some dispute between P.Ws. 2 and 3 in regard to the sale of these coupons and P.W.2 reported the matter to P. W. 1. a Labour Officer. He then gave a statement Exhibit P. 1. P.W. 1 the Labour Officer attached to the Mills sent for P.W. 3 and P.W. 3 produced the coupons and stated that the accused gave him the coupons. The accused was sent for by P.W.1 and the accused confessed that he had printed the coupons at Srivilliputhur and was selling them. He also gave a statement Exhibit P-3. P.W.1 then gave a complaint Exhibit P-4 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vikramasingapuram and the law was set in motion. 3. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused as stated above. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge without considering in detail, the points raised, disposed of the appeal in a cavalier manner and remitted the matter for fresh disposal by the trial Court. P.W.9, the Assistant Welfare Officer, Madurai Mills, Aruppukottai, has filed this revision against the order of remand. 4. I must at once point out that the learned Sessions Judge has not entered into the merits of this case, but has remanded the matter as in his view there has been an illegality in investigation. P.W.9, the Assistant Welfare Officer, Madurai Mills, Aruppukottai, has filed this revision against the order of remand. 4. I must at once point out that the learned Sessions Judge has not entered into the merits of this case, but has remanded the matter as in his view there has been an illegality in investigation. The contention of the accused before the appellate Judge was that section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits a police officer from investigating a non-cognizable offence unless authorised by an order of a competent Magistrate and if the police investigates such offence without a valid order, they act without jurisdiction and a report submitted on such investigation is not a report upon which the Magistrate can validly take cognizance of the offence under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the entire trial is vitiated. The offences alleged to have been committed are under section 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code, which are non-cognizable. It is pointed out that investigation of such offences without the order of the Magistrate is not a mere irregularity, but an illegality which vitiates the trial itself. It is admitted by P.W.13, the investigating officer, that no permission was obtained from the Magistrate to investigate into the offences. The question is whether such an investigation of non-cognizable offence without the authorisation or an order of the competent Magistrate nullifies the cognizance or the trial based thereon. My attention was invited to a ruling in Abdul Halim and another v. State of West Bengal. In that case, Mitter, J., took the view that the provisions of section 155 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be rendered nugatory by regarding a police report in a non-cognizable case where there has been no previous order under sub- section (2) of section 155, Criminal Procedure Code, as a valid report under section 190 (1) ( b), Criminal Procedure Code, and that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of a non-cognizable case as a result of an investigation by the police without an appropriate order having been obtained from a Magistrate. That was a case where a certain person produced a sale certificate in respect of certain disputed properties before an Assistant Settlement Officer. The opposite party produced a certified copy of the same document which was in certain respects at variance with the one filed by that person. That was a case where a certain person produced a sale certificate in respect of certain disputed properties before an Assistant Settlement Officer. The opposite party produced a certified copy of the same document which was in certain respects at variance with the one filed by that person. The Settlement Officer referred the matter to the police without any previous enquiry. There was no complaint by him as required under sections 195 and 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The police held an investigation and submitted a charge-sheet under sections 467, 474 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the charge-sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case. The learned Magistrate who tried the case held that a charge-sheet could be regarded as a report by the police officer and therefore he had the power to take cognizance of the case. It is under those circumstances that the above observation was made by a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner referred to Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetty. The learned Judges of the Full Bench observed: “section 199 (1) ( b) authorizes certain Magistrates to take cognizance of any offence upon a report in writing of facts which constitute such offence made by any police officer, and section 200 ( aa) provides that where a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties makes a complaint of an offence, nothing shall require the Magistrate to examine him before taking cognizance of the offence”. That ruling makes it clear that the report of police officer mentioned in section 190 (1)( b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not confined to a report of a cognizable offence, but it includes even the police report in a non-cognizable case. 6. In N.N. Rishbud and Index Singh v. The State of Delhi the Supreme Court held that if cognizance is in fact taken on a police report in breach of a mandatory provision relating to investigation, the results which follow cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice. In N.N. Rishbud and Index Singh v. The State of Delhi the Supreme Court held that if cognizance is in fact taken on a police report in breach of a mandatory provision relating to investigation, the results which follow cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice. It was further held that an illegality committed in the course of an investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the Court for trial and where cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination the invalidity of the preceding investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. This observation of the Supreme Court is a complete answer to the contention of the Counsel for the respondent that the trial following an investigation by a police office in a non-cognizable offence without obtaining the orders of the Magistrate for such investigation would vitiate the entire trial and that it is not an irregularity. But the learned Counsel for the respondent-accused placed reliance on Subodh Singh v. State to show that nonconformance with the procedure established by law vitiates the ultimate order. But that was a case “which has not proceeded to termination”, and the objection as regards the irregularity or illegality was taken at the earlier stage. Therefore, that case is not of any assistance to the respondent for the objection was taken at the earlier stage before the trial concluded. Such, however, is not the case here. The trial was allowed to proceed and it terminated. It is only at the time of arguments before the trial Magistrate that this objection was taken and in those circumstances, the ratio of the decision in Rishbud's case, would apply. 7. The casein State v. Munafkha, is one arising under the Essential Commodities Act. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the absence of any provision for investigation resulted in every investigation of an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, being made under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judge held that the Magistrate was justified in following the procedure provided for in section 251 -A of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Tarapadav. The learned Judge held that the Magistrate was justified in following the procedure provided for in section 251 -A of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Tarapadav. State was a case where the police while investigating a congizable offence became aware of a non-cognizable offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Police Investigated into that offence also without obtaining an order from a Magistrate for the investigation of the non-cognizable case and the police, after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet in the cognizable case and submitted a report styled as a complaint for the prosecution of the accused in respect of the non-cognizable offence. It was under those circumstances the learned Judge held that the trial should have been held under the old procedure contained in section 252, Criminal Procedure Code, and not under the procedure contained in section 251 -A of the Code. 9. In Safdar Hussain v. Abdul Rakim Anantanarayanan, J. as he then was, was of the view that there, on the same set of facts, both a cognizable and a non-cognizable offence would appear to be involved, the police investigating the cognizable offence can also investigate the non-cognizable offence and take action thereon. The two cases referred to above deal with the investigation in respect of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences. Here, in this case, it is not disputed that the offences with which the respondent-accused was charged were non-cognizable offence. 10. Pravin Chandrav. State of Andhra Pradesh, is also a case arising under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of clauses (4) and (5) of the Iron and Steel Control Order. The prosecution was commenced by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D. Hyderabad. A charge-sheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of the offence in cheating which was intended to serve also as a report in writing of a public servant as required by section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was filed. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against the accused therein. A charge-sheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of the offence in cheating which was intended to serve also as a report in writing of a public servant as required by section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was filed. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against the accused therein. Two objections were taken before the learned Magistrate, one relating to question of fact with which we are not concerned and the second objection was that as the police have filed a report under section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, a trial of the offence under section 7 could not be under section 251 -A, but under section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court discussed as to whether a report submitted by a police officer in a non-cognizable case is to be treated as “other than a police report”. That case is to the effect that a report of the police officer, even though it may be in a non-cognizable offence, has to be treated as a police report within the meaning of sections 251 -A and 252, Criminal Procedure Code, and the proceedings of the Magistrate cannot but be under section 251 -A. 11. In H.N. Rishbud And Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi their Lordships of the Supreme Court pointed out: “A defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. No doubt a police report which results from an investigation is provided in section 190, Criminal Procedure Code, as the material on which cognizance is taken. But it cannot be maintained that a valid and legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance. section 190, Criminal Procedure Code, is one out of a group of sections under the heading ‘conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings’. The language of this section is in marked contracts with that of the other sections of the group under the same heading, i.e., sections 193 and 195 to 199”. section 190, Criminal Procedure Code, is one out of a group of sections under the heading ‘conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings’. The language of this section is in marked contracts with that of the other sections of the group under the same heading, i.e., sections 193 and 195 to 199”. Their Lordships further pointed out: “Such an invalid report may still fall either under clause, (a) or (A) of section 190 (1), (whether it is the one or the other we need not pause to consider) and in any case cognizance so taken is only in the nature of error in a proceeding antecedent to the trial. To such a situation section 537, Criminal Procedure Code……………… is attracted”. I have already pointed out to the observations of His Lordship Jagannadhadas delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case. His Lordship was of the opinion that where the cognizance of the case has been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. The question is whether there has been such a miscarriage of justice in this case. The test of miscarriage had been made quite clear by the Supreme Court, namely that no objection was taken to the illegality in the earlier stage. In the instant case the trial has proceeded to termination. The objection was not taken at the earlier stage. Objection was taken only at the time of arguments. The learned Counsel for the respondent-accused is unable to show as to how there was any miscarriage of justice on account of the illegal investigation. There must be sufficient nexus either established or probabilised between the conviction and the irregularity in the investigation. Such a nexus was not made out in this case. In dealing with the procedures enacted under sections 251 -A and 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Krishnan, J. of Indore Bench observed in Lakshminarayan v. State: “In principle there is no difference between the two procedures, the practical difference is that in the one case the material collected by the police during investigation is before the Magistrate, and in the other he had himself to record it after the appearance of the accused. Once the charge is framed and the trial has begun, the fact of the accused person having (or not having) had a chanceof cross-examining before charge is of no significance”. It is therefore clear that the accused has not been prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate. The learned appellate Judge was therefore wrong in holding that there was prejudice and remitting the matter to the trial Court for trial afresh. The revision is allowed, the order of the appellate Judge remitting the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli Division for disposing it of on merits, in accordance with law.