Skip to content


Ganga Prasad and ors. Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1975CriLJ1565
AppellantGanga Prasad and ors.
RespondentState
Excerpt:
.....but a magistrate can still take cognizance upon his own knowledge which includes personal knowledge as well as knowledge derived from documents including police papers and final report 7. no other point was argued before me......report was lodged and investigation was made by a sub-inspector of police, who submitted a final report under section 169, cr. p. c. the learned magistrate, however instead of accepting the final report, passed the following order on 17-7-1974 : 'let accused be summoned for 27-9-1974 under sections 147, 323, 452 and 352, i.p.c.' there is no dispute on the point that the magistrate had not taken cognizance under section 190(1)(b) cr. p. c. but had taken cognizance wider section 190(1)(c) of the code.2. learned counsel for the applicants has argued that it was not open under the new cr. p.c. to take cognizance by the magistrate under section 190(1)(c) on the basis of police papers and final report as the word 'suspicion' which occurred in section 190(1)(c), cr. p. c. (old) has been.....
Judgment:
ORDER

H.N. Kapoor, J.

1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 610-A of 1974 State v. Ganga Pd. and others pending in the court of Sri D.V. Sharma, First Addl. Munsif-Magistrate, Etah. In this case a first information report was lodged and investigation was made by a Sub-Inspector of Police, who submitted a final report under Section 169, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate, however instead of accepting the final report, passed the following order on 17-7-1974 : 'Let accused be summoned for 27-9-1974 under Sections 147, 323, 452 and 352, I.P.C.' There is no dispute on the point that the Magistrate had not taken cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr. P. C. but had taken cognizance wider Section 190(1)(c) of the Code.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicants has argued that it was not open under the new Cr. P.C. to take cognizance by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(c) on the basis of police papers and final report as the word 'suspicion' which occurred in Section 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. (Old) has been deleted. Section 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. (New) reads as follows:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the First Class, and any Magistrate of the Second Class specially empowered in this behalf under Sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence..

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

The controversy has been finally settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra : 1968CriLJ97 . It was held in that case that a Magistrate could not direct the police to submit the charge-sheet under Section 190(1)(b) but it was open to the Magistrate not to accept the final report submitted by the police and to take cognisance himself under Section 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. In this respect the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court at page 123 are as follows:

There is certainly, no obligation, on the Magistrate, to accept the report, if he does not agree with the opinion formed by the police. Under those circumstances, if he still suspects that the offence has been committed, he is entitled, notwithstanding the opinion of the police, to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) of the Code....

It is open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(c), on the ground that, after having due regard to the final report and the police records placed before him, he has reason to suspect that an offence has been committed.

Shri Tejpal, learned Counsel for the applicants has vehemently argued on the basis of these observations that the Supreme Court obviously said that cognizance could have been taken on suspicion when the police papers and the final report were before the Magistrate and that is why the Supreme Court had used the word 'suspect'. According to him, after the word 'suspicion' has 'been deleted from Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190, Cr. P. C., it is not open to the Magistrate to take cognizance on the basis of the police papers and the final report. In the present case, it is alleged that there was no protest petition and no other information before the Magistrate apart from the police pampers and the final report.

3. Sri Sushil Kumar, learned Addl. Grovt. Advocate, has conceded that cognizance in the present case was not taken upon information received from any person other than the police officer. He has argued that in the present case it could be said that the Magistrate had taken cognizance upon his own knowledge derived from the police papers and the final report which were before him. According to him, 'own knowledge' is wider than 'personal knowledge' and it includes 'knowledge' derived from documents. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the case of Dwarika Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Kanpur : [1965]57ITR349(SC) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court made the following observations while considering the words 'own knowledge' in the context of swearing of affidavits:

Deponent's own knowledge in Rule 1(2) of Chapter XXII of the Rules is wide enough to apprehend the knowledge of the appellant derived from a perusal of the relevant documents; and the affidavit in express terms disclosed and specified the documents, the source of the appellant's knowledge. He swore in the affidavit that the documents annexed to the affidavit were true copies of public documents... It is, therefore, not correct to say that the facts stated in the affidavit are not based on the deponent's knowledge.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicants has tried to distinguish this case on the ground that it did not lay down the law about 'own knowledge' in the context of Section 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. He has also argued that these observations were in the nature of obiter dicta as their Lordships of the Supreme Court had also observed 'that apart if the affidavit was defective in any manner the High Court, instead of dismissing the petition in limine, should have given the appellant a reasonable opportunity to file a better affidavit complying with the provisions of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules'. Many other defects were also pointed out in the affidavits and as such the Supreme Court had made these later observations, I do not think that the earlier observations were obiter dicta. Even if they were in the nature of obiter dicta, that can have the binding effect under Article 141 of the Constitution as was held by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Firm Ramgopal Hukum Chand : AIR1960All672 . In view of the aforesaid observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it can be said that in the present case the Magistrate could have derived knowledge on the basis of the police papers and the final report submitted under Section 169, Cr. P. C. I do not think that by using the word 'suspect' in the case reported in : 1968CriLJ97 (supra), the Supreme Court had intended that the Magistrate cannot derive 'own knowledge' on the basis of the police papers and the final report and under such circumstances, he could proceed only on the basis of suspicion.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on the case of A. K. Roy v. State of West Bengal : AIR1962Cal135 . In that, case it was held that when a Magistrate acts on the basis of the police papers and the final report submitted under Section 173, Cr. P. C., he acts under Section 190(1)(b), Cr. P. C. On this point it cannot be considered to be good law as their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held subsequently in AIR 1966 SC 117 : 1968 Cri LJ 97 (supra) that the Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. if he does not accept the final report. In paragraph 15 it is wrongly reported (Editorial Note : - For an explanation why wrong reference is found to Clause (b) of Section 190(1) instead of Clause (c), see Editorial Note at page 156. Col. 2 of : AIR1971All155 that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, expressed in the final report. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to verify it from the original judgment and had observed that Section 190(1)(b) was wrongly reported for the Section 190(1)(c) which exists in the original judgment ,(vide Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. : AIR1971All155 . Learned Counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the case of Lal Bihari Singh v. Emperor AIR 1920 Pat 514 : 31 Cri LJ 55 in which it was held that the expression 'upon his own knowledge' does not include 'knowledge' gained from a police report. In my opinion that authority cannot be considered to be good law in view of the Supreme Court decision in : 1968CriLJ97 (supra).

6. In my opinion the word 'suspicion' means mere suspicion for which purpose no cogent evidence or documents need be produced before the Magistrate. The Legislature rightly considered that it was not proper to allow a Magistrate to take cognizance on the basis of mere suspicion and so the word 'suspicion' was deleted. But a Magistrate can still take cognizance upon his own knowledge which includes personal knowledge as well as knowledge derived from documents including police papers and final report

7. No other point was argued before me.

8. The petition is accordingly dismissed It is, however, made clear that cognizance shall be deemed to have been taken under Section 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. and the provisions of Section 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. will apply.


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