A bare Magistrate’s endorsement cannot authorize non-cognizable investigation without application of judicial mind.

Police alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were collecting money from the public and facilitating “O.C. Matka” gambling at a public place.

A raid allegedly resulted in seizure of cash, an O.C. chit, a ballpen and pieces of paper.

The petitioner, accused No. 2, challenged the charge sheet and proceedings under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, contending that the offence was non-cognizable and that the mandatory procedure under Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) had not been followed.

The State submitted that the Magistrate had permitted the investigation.

The Magistrate’s endorsement on the police requisition read “Permitted”.

1. Whether the police could investigate the alleged non-cognizable offence without compliance with Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the Magistrate’s endorsement “Permitted” on the police requisition constituted a valid order authorising investigation.

3. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner, accused No. 2, were liable to be quashed in light of the alleged absence of recovery or a mahazar connecting him to the offence.

Section 155(1) of the Cr.P.C. requires the officer in charge of a police station, on receiving information about a non-cognizable offence, to record its substance in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate; Section 155(2) prohibits police investigation of such an offence without an order from a Magistrate empowered to try or commit the case.

In Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 KAR 630, the Court held that a bare endorsement such as “permitted” on a police requisition is not a lawful order under Section 155(2); the Magistrate must apply judicial mind, record satisfaction that investigation is warranted, and specify the investigating officer.

The alleged offence was treated as non-cognizable, so the statutory requirements of Section 155 applied.

Although the State asserted that permission had been obtained, the Magistrate had only endorsed “Permitted” on the requisition, without a reasoned order demonstrating judicial application of mind.

Applying Vaggeppa, the Court held that this endorsement did not validly authorise investigation.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s name emerged from accused No. 1’s statement and that no incriminating article had been recovered from the petitioner or mahazar drawn in relation to him.

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.