Judgment :- The petition is filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No.R.C.42 A of 2007 dated 28. 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai. 2. The sum and substance of the averment found in the complaint lodged as against the petitioners is as follows:- During a search conducted in a case by the CBI team at the guest house of the petitioners, a huge quantity of international calling cards with the brand name V.Tel were found. The Superintendent of Police, CBI requested the Vigilance and Telecom Monitoring (VTM) team to visit the aforesaid premises of the petitioners. The VTM team visited the premises on 8. 2007 and found some boxes containing international calling cards of various denomination in the trade name of V.Tel marketed by the petitioners. It was ascertained by VTM from the licensing cell functioning at the Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi that the petitioners/accused did not possess "No Objection Certificate" issued by the Department of Telecommunications for marketing and selling the international calling cards in the name of V.Tel in India. The sale of international calling cards in India without "No Objection Certificate" from the Department of Telecommunications is punishable under section 20 read with section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The international calling cards have been illegally marketed and sold by the petitioners with the connivance of some unknown public servants and thereby they have caused wrongful loss of revenue to the Government of India and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. The loss of revenue is yet to be calculated. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused would submit that obtention of No Objection Certificate from the Department of Telecommunications is quite unknown to Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. The petitioners sought for No Objection Certificate as demanded by Department of Telecommunications and obtained No Objection Certificate from the said Department within a few days from the date of registration of a case as against the petitioners. No loss has occasioned to the Government of India on account of the marketing and selling of tele cards by the petitioners. The allegation, as such, found in the complaint does not reflect commission of any offence. Even the penal provision found in the Telegraph Act, 1885 would go to show that the offence punishable under section 20 of the said Act is only bailable and non-cognizable. The allegation, as such, found in the complaint does not reflect commission of any offence. Even the penal provision found in the Telegraph Act, 1885 would go to show that the offence punishable under section 20 of the said Act is only bailable and non-cognizable. In view of the above, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings. 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would contend that the tele cards have been found marketed by the petitioners without the required licence or No Objection Certificate as contemplated under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885. The tele cards marketed by the petitioners squarely fall under the definition of "Telegraph" as defined under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Though the offence punishable under section 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act is non-cognizable and bailable, the other offences also have been allegedly committed and that therefore, there is nothing wrong in registering a case involving cognizable and non-cognizable offences as per the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is his further submission that the investigation has just begun. The loss, if any, to the Government of India will have to be assessed. He would further submit that if tele cards are marketed and sold without the required licence or No Objection Certificate from the Department of Telecommunications, the tele cards would be issued to persons who do not have any residence and as a result of which, there would be an imminent threat to the security of the country. Therefore, he would submit that the investigation should be carried on by the respondent-CBI. 5. On a careful perusal of the definition of the term "Telegraph" found in section 3(1AA), the court finds that the said term means any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, visual or other electromagnetic emissions, Radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means. The Telegraph involves the technology of electro magnetic emissions. Therefore, it cannot be said, at this stage, that tele cards do not fall under the definition of Telegraph as defined under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 6. The Telegraph involves the technology of electro magnetic emissions. Therefore, it cannot be said, at this stage, that tele cards do not fall under the definition of Telegraph as defined under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 6. It is true that the petitioners sought clarification on the requirement of obtention of No Objection Certificate for selling global calling cards to be used outside India as per the communication dated 7. 2007. No reply has emanated from the Telegraph Department, it is found. V.Tel calling cards were allegedly seized on 8. 2007 by the CBI involving the Telecommunications Department also. It is found that only thereafter on 18. 2007, the petitioners have sought No Objection Certificate from the Directorate of Telecommunications. The case has been thereafter registered for the offences punishable under section 20 read with section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against the petitioner on 28. 2007. The No Objection Certificate was issued in all fairness by the Department of Telecommunications for the sale of international calling cards in India to the petitioner on 19. 2007. Of course, the press advertisements and advertisements through hoardings have been actively made by the petitioners prior to the controversy arisen but, the petitioners cannot market and sell international calling cards in India which fall under the definition of Telegraph as defined under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 without obtaining due licence as contemplated under section 4 of the said Act. The failure on the part of the Department of Telecommunications in responding to the letter seeking clarification emanated from the petitioners and the subsequent issuance of No Objection Certificate by the Department of Telecommunications after the search was made and seizure was effected from the guest house of the petitioner cannot wipe out the alleged offences committed by the petitioners. 7. It is further found that the Department of Telecommunications feel that some unidentified Government Officials also have been involved as the international calling cards marketed by the petitioners publicly without obtaining due licence. The investigation is at a nascent stage. The implication of issuance of international calling cards without actually insisting for the residential addresses of the customers will have to be thoroughly investigated by the CBI. The investigation is at a nascent stage. The implication of issuance of international calling cards without actually insisting for the residential addresses of the customers will have to be thoroughly investigated by the CBI. The respondent also will have to investigate whether the international calling cards could be used within India and the impact on the exchequer of the Department of Telecommunications, if the same had been used within India. 8. Cognizable offence cannot be straightway taken cognizance of by the police. When cognizable offences have been committed along with non-cognizable offences, the police has every authority to take cognizance of the case. 9. It is true that the scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, does not contemplate issuance of No Objection Certificate. Quite unfortunately, the Department of Telecommunications had insisted upon No Objection Certificate for marketing and selling of the international calling cards, but, on a perusal of section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it is found that obtention of licence is very much required for establishing, maintaining and working the Telegraphs. Wrong perception of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 by the Department of Telecommunications will not relieve the petitioner from the offences allegedly committed more especially when no licence was issued to the petitioners at the time of the alleged commission of the offence. The subsequent obtention of the No Objection Certificate from the Department of Telecommunications will not absolve the criminal liability of the petitioners if at all they have committed any offence as alleged. 10. The court finds that the aforesaid serious allegations made against the petitioners will have to be properly investigated to its logical end. The petition seeking quashment, therefore, merits no consideration. 11. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition also stands dismissed.