Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 807 (AP)

Juvvadi Raghu v. State

2006-07-12

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2006
J U D G M E N T 1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by A1 to A4 in C.C.No.157 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Siricilla to quash the proceeding therein. 2. The facts of the case need not be elaborated in view of the legal issue raised in this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that police conducted investigation in non-cognizable offences without obtaining permission from the concerned Magistrate and therefore the charge sheet filed basing on such investigation is not legal and proper and the same is required to be quashed. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in V.SUDHAKAR v. R.RAMA MOHAN RAO AND OTHERS(1) and the decision of Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL(2). 4. The factual aspect that the police did not obtain permission before proceeding with the investigation in Cr.No.8 of 2005 is not controverted. A case in Cr.No.8 of 2005 came to be registered against the accused for the offences under sections 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Admittedly Sec.323 IPC is a non-cognizable offence. With regard to Sec.506 IPC, the offence was made cognizable only for six months and subsequently the period was not extended and, therefore, on the date of the incident in question, the offence under section 506 IPC was also non-cognizable. A question came up for consideration as to whether Sec.506 IPC is cognizable or non-cognizable in V.SUDHAKAR v. R.RAMA MOHAN RAO AND OTHERS(3) wherein it has been held as follows: “ 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. Gazette Part I Extraordinary, dated 9.12.1991, offences punishable under Sections 186, 188, 189, 190, 228, 295-A, 298, 505, 506 and 507 IPC are made cognizable offences and fofences 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 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. 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. Extension 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 (Power of State Government to make certain offences cognizable and non-bailable) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. As per sub-section (3) of Section 10, a notification issued under sub-section (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. 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 sub-section (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 remains non-cognizable offences.” Undisputedly the offence in question is said to have committed on 16.1.2005. Therefore, offence under Sections 186 and 506 IPC remains non-cognizable offences.” Undisputedly the offence in question is said to have committed on 16.1.2005. Therefore, both the offences under sections 323 and 506 IPC were non-cognizable as on the date of registration of the case in C.C.No.8 of 2005. 5. As per Sec.155 Cr.P.C, if information regarding noncognizable 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 accused in C.C.No.157 of 2005 are liable to be quahed and accordingly the same are hereby quashed. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. --X—