C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) ON the basis of a complaint given by the 1st respondent, the Station House Officer, uppal Police Station, having registered a case in crime No. 367 of 1999. laid a charge sheet against the petitioner for offences under Sections 186 and 5061 PC, which was taken cognizance of by the learned magistrate as C. C. No. 464 of 2002. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said C. C. ( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that since petitioner gave a report against the 1st respondent on 11-11-1996, which was registered as crime No. 361 of 1999 under section 3 (1) (x) of the Schedule Caste and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act. 1st respondent as a counter blast gave a false complaint against the petitioner with a view to harass him and so the proceedings are liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent is that since the allegations in the complaint and the investigation made by the police show commission of the offences alleged, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. ( 4 ) SINCE offences under Sections 186 and 506 IPC, are non-cognizable offences as per Cr. P. C. , I heard the learned counsel on the maintainability of the charge-sheet filed by police. It is seen that by virtue of a notification in G. O. Ms. No. 732 Home (Court-B) dated 15-12-1991. (issued under criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and ordinance No. 6 of 1972) published in a. P. Gazettee Part I Extraordinary, dated 09-12-1991, offences punishable under sections 186, 188, 189, 190, 228, 295-A, 298, 505, 506 and 507 IPC are made cognizable offences and offences under sections 188 and 506 IPC are made non-bailable offences. It should be noted that ordinance No. 6 of 1972 was promulgated amending certain provisions of the Criminal law Amendment Act, 1932. After the said ordinance lapsed, the Criminal Law amendment Act, 1932 was amended by a. P. Act 25 of 1979. In view of Section 1 (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, that Act had no application to the territories which, immediately before the 1st november, 1956, were comprised in part B states. After the said ordinance lapsed, the Criminal Law amendment Act, 1932 was amended by a. P. Act 25 of 1979. In view of Section 1 (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, that Act had no application to the territories which, immediately before the 1st november, 1956, were comprised in part B states. So it is clear that the Criminal Law amendment Act, 1932, was not in force in hyderabad District of which Uppal, which presently is in Ranga Reddy District, was a part. It is only by virtue of Act 25 of 1979, i. e. , the Criminal Law Amendment Act (A. P. Extention and amendment) Act 1979 was the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 extended to the whole of A. P. with effect from the date of that Act, By virtue of that a. P. Act 25 of 1979, sub-section (3) was introduced in Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. The said Sec. 10, as amended reads thus:"10. Power of State Government to make certain offences cognizable and non-bailable: 1. The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette declare that any offence punishable under Sections 186, 188, 189, 190, 228, 295-A, 295, 505, 506 or 507 of the indian Penal Code, 1960 (45 of 1860), when committed in any area specified in the notification shall, not withstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), be cognizable and thereupon the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall, while such notification remains in force, be deemed to be amended accordingly. 2. The State Government may, in like manner and subject to the like conditions, and with the like effect, declare that an offence punishable undef Section 188 or Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), shall be non-bailable. 3. A notification issued under subsection (2) shall be in force for six months only, but the State Government may, by a like notification, extend it for any period not exceeding six months if they are satisfied that in the public interest it is necessary or expedient so to do. 3. A notification issued under subsection (2) shall be in force for six months only, but the State Government may, by a like notification, extend it for any period not exceeding six months if they are satisfied that in the public interest it is necessary or expedient so to do. " ( 5 ) THUS it is clear from sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment act, 1932, that any notification issued under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of that Act would be in operation only for six months and the Government may, by a like notification, extend it for any period not exceeding six months, if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest it is necessary or expedient to do so. The above notification in G. O. Ms. No. 732, referred to above, came into force on 9-12-1991. By virtue of section 10 (3) of the Criminal Law amendment Act, 1932 that notification ceases to have effect after six months from the date of notification, since no other notification extending the period of its validity is issued by the Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Criminal Law amendment Act, 1932, it is clear that by the date of alleged offence, which took place on 8-11-1999, the notification in G. O. Ms. No. 732 Home (Court-B) dated 15-12-1991, was not in force. Therefore, offence under sections 186 and 506 IPC remain non-cognizable offences. ( 6 ) AS per Sec. 155 Cr. P. C. if information with regard to non-cognizable offences is given to an officer in-charge of a police station he has to enter the substance of that information in a book to be kept in the form prescribed by the State Government, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. In this case, there is nothing on record to show that the police followed such procedure and obtained permission from the Magistrate to investigate into the case. Therefore, police taking cognizance and investigating into a non-cognizable offence without the permission of the Magistrate, is wholly contrary to the provisions of Cr. P. C. and is vitiated. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in the C. C. No. 464 of 2002 are liable to be and hence are quashed. Therefore, police taking cognizance and investigating into a non-cognizable offence without the permission of the Magistrate, is wholly contrary to the provisions of Cr. P. C. and is vitiated. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in the C. C. No. 464 of 2002 are liable to be and hence are quashed. ( 7 ) IN view of my findings, I feel it unnecessary to go into contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) IN the result, the Petition is allowed.