Judgment :- 1. Sub Inspector of. Police filed a petty case charge against the petitioner alleging offence under S.290 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation, in short, was that the petitioner, who is the owner of a motor workshop was found repairing two vehicles on the public road in front of his workshop at 10.40 p.m. and the sound produced by the repair work caused public nuisance to persons living in the locality. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of this petty case. When the petitioner appeared before court learned Magistrate read out the particulars of the offence and asked whether he pleads guilty or not. Petitioner denied the charge. Thereupon two witnesses were examined as P.Ws 1 and 2. Sub Inspector gave evidence as P.W.3.On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence under S.290 of the Indian Penal Code. He was thereupon sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.150/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Petitioner challenged this conviction and sentence in appeal without success. Hence this revision petition. 2. Apart from raising the plea that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below is perverse, learned counsel representing the petitioner contended that the trial of the case was vitiated on account of the non supply of the copies of the statements of witnesses questioned by police in the course of investigation. It is alleged that petitioner was seriously prejudiced on account of the failure in supplying the statements of witnesses. Consequently it is argued that the conviction and sentence may be quashed. 3. Offence charged against the petitioner is one under S.290 of the Penal Code. It is a non-cognizable offence. The maximum punishment prescribed for this offence is fine of Rs.200/-. When an officer in charge of a police station receives information about the commission of a non-cognizable offence he will record the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the complainant to a Magistrate. No police officer shall investigate the case without an order of a Magistrate. Offence involved in the case being non-cognizable, there could not be any investigation without an order of a competent Magistrate. So no report contemplated by S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as Code could have been filed either. No police officer shall investigate the case without an order of a Magistrate. Offence involved in the case being non-cognizable, there could not be any investigation without an order of a competent Magistrate. So no report contemplated by S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as Code could have been filed either. Explanation to S.2(d) of the Code states that report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer shall be deemed to be the complainant. Therefore the report or complaint of "petty case charge sheet" submitted by a police cannot be considered as a police report falling under S.173 of the Code. It can be treated as a complaint only. 4. S.157 of the Code enunciates the procedure for investigation. Investigation starts when police officer receives information regarding the commission of the offence. He must forthwith send a report of the same to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. Then he proceeds to the spot to ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case and discover and arrest the offender. He collects evidence relating to the commission of the offence by examining persons and recording their statements. I do not think there was any investigation as above in this case. Petitioner was never arrested. There is nothing on record to show that any person was questioned by the Sub Inspector of Police. I do not find any factual basis to conclude that the Sub Inspector conducted any investigation in this case. 5. S.207 of the Code casts a duty on the Magistrate to furnish to the accused documents including the statements recorded under S.161 (3) of the Code of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine. This duty is in relation to cases instituted on a police report falling under S.173 of the Code. In cases instituted otherwise than on such report the accused cannot insist on the supply of such statements, because there won't be any statement. This duty is in relation to cases instituted on a police report falling under S.173 of the Code. In cases instituted otherwise than on such report the accused cannot insist on the supply of such statements, because there won't be any statement. Thus it is clear that the statutory right of the accused to be furnished with statements appears clearly to relate to a trial in respect of the offence which was investigated and does not apply to a trial for a non cognizable offence in respect of which there has been no investigation (Vide Purshottam Jethanand v. State of Kutch (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 700). 6. The allegations made against the petitioner were not elaborate or complicated. Simple facts constituting the offence were made mention of in the copy of the complaint. He was also informed of the witnesses who may be examined in case he chooses to plead not guilty. The complaint which was brief was properly explained to the petitioner. The Magistrate appears to have made the petitioner understand the accusations against him. In these circumstances there is no foundation to support the argument that the procedure adopted by the trial court has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. 7. P.Ws.1 and 2 have given evidence in support of the prosecution. This evidence has been properly appreciated by the courts below. The conclusions reached by the courts below based on their legal evidence can, by no stretch of imagination be termed as perverse. Nor can it be said that the courts below misread the evidence in the case. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts. It therefore follows that the conviction calls for no interference. For the offence proved, the sentence imposed cannot be considered as harsh. So the sentence does not require any alteration. Result therefore is, the revision petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.