STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ABDUL WAHAB — 1985 DIGILAW 489 (KAR)

VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Petition by the State is directed against the order dated 11-10-1984 of the Munsiff and. M. F. C. Kanakapura, in C. C. No. 232 of 1982 on his file. By that order, the Learned Magistrate, exercising his powers under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stopped the proceedings. This was at a stage where the recording of evidence had not even commenced. The stoppage of the proceedings has in law the effect of discharging the accused. The Respondent was the accused and he was being prosecuted on the allegation that he had committed an offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 read with Section 11 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act. 1964 (the Act ). It may not be necessary to enter into the merits of the case nor to highlight the facts in great detail and that is for the reason that the order of the Court below terminating the proceeding mainly proceeds on a legal ground. The Learned magistrate is of the view that the police who had investigated into this offence and placed the final report, were not competent to so investigate and prose-cute the Respondent. In this connection, he takes into consideration Section 10 of the Act which empowers "the Competent authority", so named under the Act, to enter and inspect any premises suspected to have been or is likely to be used for the commission of an offence under the Act. From this, the Learned magistrate proceeded to infer that only the Competent Authority had, and the police did not at all have any powers to enter into the premises of the Respondent and collect information. It may be noted that Section 12 of the Act declares that all the offences under the Act are cognizable. Though Section 11, which provides for penalties, says that a person contravening the provision of the Act would be liable for punishment with imprisonment upto six months or with fine upto rs. l,000/- or with both, the Act does not provide as to the procedure to be followed by the investigating Agency nor does it say as to how the proceeding has to be tried and in which court. In these circumstances, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall have to come to our aid. l,000/- or with both, the Act does not provide as to the procedure to be followed by the investigating Agency nor does it say as to how the proceeding has to be tried and in which court. In these circumstances, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall have to come to our aid. Sections 4 and 5 of the Code read thus : "4 (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. 5. Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. " ( 2 ) AS observed by the Supreme Court in Khatri and others etc.-v.- State of Bihar and others, AIR1981 SC 1068 , 1981 (29 )BLJR425 , 1981 (1 )SCALE531 , (1981 )2 SCC493 , [1981 ]3 SCR145 , 1981 (13 )UJ924 (SC ) that : "it is apparent from Section 4 that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable where an offence under the Penal Code or under any other law is being investigated, inquired into, tried or otherwise dealt with. " ( 3 ) IN Maru Ram and others -v.- Union of India and others etc. , AIR1980 sc 2147 , 1980 Crilj1440 , (1981 )1 SCC107 , [1981 ]1 SCR1196 the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 5 of the Code. At para 33, the Court observes thus : "the anatomy of this saving section is simple, yet subtle. Broadly speaking, there are three components to be separated. Firstly, the Procedure Code generally governs matters covered by it. Secondly, if a special or local law exists covering the same area, this latter law will be saved and will prevail. At para 33, the Court observes thus : "the anatomy of this saving section is simple, yet subtle. Broadly speaking, there are three components to be separated. Firstly, the Procedure Code generally governs matters covered by it. Secondly, if a special or local law exists covering the same area, this latter law will be saved and will prevail. The short-sentencing measures and remission schemes promulgated by the various states are special and local laws and must override. Now comes the third component which may be clinching. If there is a specific provision to the contrary, then that will override the special or local law. " ( 4 ) AS already stated, the Act in question does not contain any separate provision dealing with investigations and trials of offences arising under the Act. If that is so, they shall have to be investigated into and tried in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Since the offence is made cogni zable, the police had powers to suo moto investigate and file their final report. In this view of the matter, the investigation made by the police, the final report presented by them and the order of the Court taking cognizance of the offence can all be said to be in accordance with law. The Learned Magistrate need not have stopped the proceeding for the reasons stated by him in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Court below is directed to proceed further from the stage it had stopped and to dispose of the case in accordance with law.