Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KESHAV LAL THAKUR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/10/1996
BENCH:
M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Special leave granted.
On a report lodged by Jnanerdra Parchchya, Anu Mandal
Padadhikari, Gooda, a case under Section 31 of the
Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 (’Act’ for short) was
registered against Keshav Lal Thakur, the appellant herein,
by Thakur Gangti Police Station and on completion of
investigation a report in final form was submitted praying
for his discharge on the ground that the offence was a non-
cognizable one. On that report the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Godda, took cognizance as in his view, a prima
facies case was made out against the appellant; and
aggrieved thereby he moved a petition under Section 482 Dr.
P.C. before the Patna High Court wherein he contended,
inter alia, that the cognizance was barred by limitation
under Section 468 Dr. P.C. A learned Judge of the High
Court, who entertained the petition, ultimately dismissed
the same being of the view that under Section 473 Dr. P.C.
cognizance could be taken beyond the period of limitation.
The above order of the High Court is under challenge us in
this appeal.
We need not go into the question whether in the facts
of the instant case the above view of the High Court is
proper or not for the impugned proceeding has got to be
quashed as neither the police was entitled to investigate
into the offence in question nor the Chief Judicial
Magistrate to take cognizance upon the report submitted on
completion of such investigation. On the own showing of the
police, the offence under Section 31 of the Act is non
cognizable and therefore the police could not have
registered a case for such an offence under Section 154 Dr.
P.C. of course, the police is entitled to investigate into a
non-cognizable offence pursuant to an order of a competent
Magistrate under Section 155 (2) Dr. P.C. but, admittedly,
no such order was passed in the instant case. That
necessarily means, that neither the police could investigate
into the offence in question nor submit a report on which
the question of taking cognizance could have arisen. While
on this point, it may be mentioned that in view of the
proviso to Section 2 (d) Dr. P.C., which defines
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
’complaint’, the police is entitled to submit, after
investigation, a report a relating to a non-cognizable
offence in which case such a report is to be treated as a
’complaint’ of the police officer concerned, but that
explanation will not be available to the prosecution here as
that related to a case where the police initiates
investigation into a cognizable offence - unlike the present
one - but ultimately finds that only a non-cognizable
offence has been made out.
On the conclusions as above we allow this appeal and
quash the impugned proceedings.