Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Appa Ragho Bhogle - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 69 of 1914
Judge
Reported in(1915)17BOMLR69
AppellantEmperor
RespondentAppa Ragho Bhogle
Excerpt:
.....of 1898), sections 175, 155-information to police of non-cognisable offence-order of magistrate-no report by police to magistrate-prosecution of informants for false information-pendency of the first case-penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 211.;the accused gave information to the police of the commission of a non-cognizable offence. the police obtained the authority of a magistrate, as required by section 155 of the criminal procedure code, to investigate the case. the magistrate directed the police to report to him. the report was not made. the police, however, instituted proceedings against the accused under section 211 of the penal code. the accused were convicted and sentenced. the sessions judge referred the case to the high court on the ground that the prosecution of the accused..........code to investigate the case. in empowering them to do this the magistrate directed that they (the police) should report to him. no report was ever made. even if the magistrate had not directed a report to be made, section 173 of the code requires that it should be made. the case is one that could not be disposed of without the order of the magistrate in some form or another. but no report was made to the magistrate and no order was made by him and the case as a matter of fact has never been disposed of. meantime, however, the police instituted proceedings against the persons who had given the information and prosecuted them under section 211 of the indian penal code. they obtained a conviction before the magistrate. on application in revision to the sessions judge he referred the matter.....
Judgment:

Heaton, J.

1. In this case the applicants gave information to the Police about certain alleged circumstances in relation to a woman who had just died, and this amounted to information of the commission of a non-cognizable offence. It was made to the Police who obtained the authority of a Magistrate as required by Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate the case. In empowering them to do this the Magistrate directed that they (the Police) should report to him. No report was ever made. Even if the Magistrate had not directed a report to be made, Section 173 of the Code requires that it should be made. The case is one that could not be disposed of without the order of the Magistrate in some form or another. But no report was made to the Magistrate and no order was made by him and the case as a matter of fact has never been disposed of. Meantime, however, the Police instituted proceedings against the persons who had given the information and prosecuted them under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. They obtained a conviction before the Magistrate. On application in revision to the Sessions Judge he referred the matter to us. The ground he took was that the trial which took place without the Magistrate's sanction was illegal. In substance I dare say that that is perfectly true, although technically it may be that that reason is doubtful because of the circumstance that the proceedings did not go before the Magistrate and apparently so far as the police are concerned were not intended to go before him. I mean the proceedings of the investigation into the non-cognizable case. But however that may be, there is another objection which seems to me more fundamental and more cogent than the want of a sanction. It is that, as I have explained, the case had not come to an end and could not come to an end without an order of the Magistrate. This being so, it is contrary to the method and the spirit, contrary indeed to the whole system of our criminal procedure, that the police should be allowed to prosecute in the way they have done without ever haying the case disposed of by a Magistrate. The point is one not of technicality but of very great importance. One need say little to show how absolutely contrary to our system things would be if the police were allowed, independently of the Magistrates, to take proceedings, as they have done here, in cases which had never been disposed of by a Magistrate.

2. For that important and fundamental defect I consider that the whole of these proceedings are bad and that the conviction must be set aside.

Shah, J.

3. I concur.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //