Judgment.- This appeal is preferred by the State, as the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him under sections 409, 467, read with sections 471 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code. The case against the respondent was that he failed to disburse a money order for Rs. 20 to the payee by name K. Venkata Subbaiah (P.W. 5) that he forged his signatures on the acknowledgment and the Money Order form and used them as genuine documents knowing them to be forged and misappropriated the amount thus obtained after forging the signature of P.W. 5. The respondent Rajamahanti Narayandas who is the postman, pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him. But, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge refused to accept plea of the accused, and proceeded with the trial of the case, as in his opinion there was no first information report in the case and secondly, that the Police had not obtained the necessary permission of the Magistrate to investigate into a non-cognizable offence, i.e., offence under section 477-A, Indian Penal Code. It may be pointed out at the out-set that except the offence under section 477-A, Indian Penal Code, the other offences committed by the accused, namely under sections 409 and 467, Indian Penal Code are cognizable offences, and it is not known why the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had relied upon this aspect of the case. It has been pointed by the Supreme Court in Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, that where the information discloses a cognizable as well as a non-cognizable offence the police officer is not debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence which may arise out of the same facts. He can include that non-cognizable offence in the charge-sheet which he presents for a cognizable offence. It may be relevant to notice, as pointed out by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge himself that in the course of investigation of a cognizable offence, the offence relating to section 477-A, Indian Penal Code also came to light. Therefore the Police Officer is entitled to investigate into any non-cognizable offence which may arise out of the facts in the course of investigation of a cognizable offence. The learned Assistant. Therefore the Police Officer is entitled to investigate into any non-cognizable offence which may arise out of the facts in the course of investigation of a cognizable offence. The learned Assistant. Sessions Judge was further of the view that unless the first information report is filed, and a copy of the report is furnished to the accused the prosecution cannot be sustained. It may be relevant to notice what the Privy Council stated in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad2in this regard. “In the case of cognizable offences, receipt and recording of a first information report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. No doubt in the great majority of cases, criminal prosecutions are undertaken as a result of information received and recorded in this way but there is no reason why the Police, if in possession through their own knowledge or by means of credible though informal intelligence which genuinely leads them to belief that a cognizable offence has been committed, should not of their own motion undertake an investigation into the truth of the matters alleged. Section 157 when directing that a police officer, who has reason to suspect from information or otherwise that an offence which he is empowered to investigate under section 156 has been committed shall proceed to investigate whether the facts and circumstances supports this view.” Therefore, having regard to the view taken by the Privy Council it is unnecessary that there should be recording of the first information report before any investigation can commence as in the present case. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge was therefore in error in acquitting the accused on these technical grounds in spite of the fact that the accused pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him. The accused admitted that the money order was entrusted to him, but he did not deliver the same to P.W. 5, that on the other hand, he forged the signature of the payee on the Money Order form as well as the acknowledgment and misappropriated the amount. Therefore there could not be any doubt from his own admissions that he is guilty of the four charges framed against him. There could be little doubt that he himself committed the forgery of a public document and used it with a dishonest intention and misappropriated the sum. Therefore there could not be any doubt from his own admissions that he is guilty of the four charges framed against him. There could be little doubt that he himself committed the forgery of a public document and used it with a dishonest intention and misappropriated the sum. Therefore, the four charges framed against the accused have been established not only from his own admissions but also as may be seen from the evidence of a P.Ws. 1 to 6. P.W. 1 is the Inspector of the Post Offices and he held the departmental enquiry on a complaint made to him. The verification of the accused’s beat book showed the P.W. 5 was the payee and that the concerned beat postman was the accused. P.W. 5 was examined by this witness in the presence of the accused and he also afforded an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine P.W. 5. P.W. 5 is the payee and he speaks of his having to get a sum of Rs. 25 from Chintalapudi Narasireddy of Dubaguntla. He received a letter from Narasireddy that he had a money order for Rs. 20 but he (P.W. 5) did not get the same. He then made a report Exhibit P-5 on the basis of which the postal authorities made the preliminary enquiry. The evidence of P.W. 6, the Assistant Director of the Scientific section, C.I.D., Hyderabad, showed that the signatures on the Money Order form are not of P.W. 5. The accused himself has stated that he forged the signatures. Therefore, in the face of the unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution even apart from the admissions made by the accused the four charges framed against him are proved. He is, therefore, convicted under the first charge under section 409, Indian Penal Code, under the second charge under section 467, Indian Penal Code, under the third charge under section 467, Indian Penal Code read with section 471, Indian Penal Code and under the fourth charge under section 477-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month under each of the counts. The sentences will run concurrently. In the result the State appeal is accordingly allowed. G.S.M. ----- Acquittal set aside; accused convicted.