R.P. Khosla, J.
1. This petition for revision seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated in the Court of first instance upon a police report. (1A) The facts were these:
2. The Agent State Bank, Chandigarh, on an intelligence that Bal Raj Katial the teller of the Bank, had made overpayment to the tune of Rs. 18.200/- lodged a report with the police. The case was registered under Sections 409/411, 406/379 of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation was taken in hand.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 26th of December 1963 but was subsequently on 4th of January 1964 released on bail under the orders of Sessions Judge. The result of police investigation finally pointed to the petitioner having committed the offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code instead. A report, accordingly, in that behalf was made to the Court of Magistrate First Class upon which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and the impugned proceedings got afoot.
4. The challenge of the learned counsel appearing in support of the instant petition is two-fold: It was firstly contended that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. The offence having been non-cognizable, investigation and the police report ought to have been pursuant to prior order of the Magistrate.
5. Contention further was that in any event procedure adopted should have been that was prescribed for trial of a complaint.
6. The second point urged offers no difficulty for the impugned order of the learned Magistrate sets out in the forefront that procedure of a complaint was being adopted.
7. The real agitation and controversy centred round the other question: whether cognizance could have been taken by the learned Magistrate of the matter embracing an alleged offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code on police report.
8. The claim seriously pressed on behalf of the petitioner was that the offence under Section 403, Indian Penal Code, being a non-cognizable one, in view of provisions or Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure police investigation was barred, and if suck investigation was intended it had to be with the order of the Magistrate.
9. There could be no quarrel with the proposition in respect of an offence per se non-cognizable. But in the instant case the police investigation had started on an information having in ambit offences under Sections 409/411 406/379, Indian Penal Code, clearly cognizable in nature. The police investigation could not, therefore, have been held bad or suffering from any infirmity.
10. The question next that requires determination is, whether in such contingency the police agency can on a resultant offence of a non-cognizable nature make a report to the Court of competent Jurisdiction for it to take cognizance for convening the trial ?
11. On a fuller consideration upon hearing, parties at length my considered view is that mere is no bar and the proceedings are not vitiated.
12. The provisions of Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, set out herein below, provide a complete and adequate answer:
'190 (1) Except as hereinafter provided, any Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and any other Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf, may take cognizance of any offence
(b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police-officer;'
13. There is no bar to a Court of competent jurisdiction taking cognizance of any offence (non-cognizable as well as cognizable). Non-cognizable cases on a complaint could be proceeded with but if police was required to investigate and make a report prior order to that effect was incumbent as envisaged by the provisions of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In cases registered for the offence or offences of cognizable nature or mixed cognizable and non-cognizable in character and resulting in the police report for a non-cognizable offence, no such order would be required because it would be wholly unnecessary, for the police had already investigated into the matter and the report filed was the result of that investigation. Not only such an order would be superfluous but it would lead to absurdity, for it would entail going over the ground already covered.
14. These observations are not of first impression. The matter is covered by authority. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. State, AIR 1958 Punj 172, was a case of investigation and report by police upon offences cognizable and non-cognizable. Similar objection raised regarding the report relating to non-cognizable offence was repelled. Parshottam Jethanand v. The State, AIR 1952 Kutch 54, is directly in point and is on all fours with the instant case. Proceedings upon a police report in a non-cognizable offence were held not vitiated. The observations and findings in Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetty, AIR 1926 Mad 865 (FB) and Emperor v. Shivaswami Guruswami, AIR 1927 Bom 440, are also helpful and elucidate the view expressed.
15. This petition must thus fail and is accordingly dismissed.
16. Parties through counsel are directed to appear in the Court of first instance on 17th of January 1966.