S.H. Sheth, J.
1-3. x x x x x x x x x x x x
Mr. Mehta has argued that the complaint lodged by this witness Ex. 49 is not admissible in evidence because it is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Mehta, information of a cognizable offence was given much earlier to the police. He has invited our attention in that behalf to the deposition of Batuksing Bavansing, Police Station Officer in charge of Mehsana Taluka Police Station at the relevant time. He is P.W. 13. Ex. 29. His evidence discloses that he had received a telephonic message from Police Head Constable Prakash at about 1-25 P.M. informing him that a quarrel had taken place between Rabaris and the watchmen and that the Rabaris had run away after having assaulted the watchmen and that, therefore, the needful should be done. He did not record that message in the telephone register maintained by the Police Station. Therefore, we really do not have before us the exact message which was received on telephone from Head Constable Prakash who was at Sobhasan. As soon as he received the telephonic message from Head Constable Prakash he did not record it in the tele-, phone register of the Police Station but issued an order in writing to Head Constable Mahebub Pathan to proceed to village Sobhasan. At Ex. 30 is the written order which he issued to Head Constable Pathan. It gives us an idea as to what information he had received. The order issued by him to Head Constable Pathan (Ex. 30) shows that a scuffle or Maramari had taken place between Rabaris and watchmen at Sobhasan and that the watchmen had suffered more injuries. It also shows that the Rabaris after having assaulted the watchmen had run away. The Police Station Officer, therefore, directed Mahebub Pathan to do the needful in the matter. Mr. Shah has argued that the information received by the Police Station Officer, Mehsana was not information of a cognizable offence and that, therefore, it was no information at all which would render the complaint, Ex. 49, inadmissible in evidence under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. In order to convince us that the information which was given by Head Constable Prakash to the Police Station Officer, Mehsana as disclosed by Ex. 30 is admissible in evidence Mr. Mehta has invited our attention to Section 320, I.P.C. According to him, it was an information relating to grievous hurt and therefore that information was of a cognizable offence. Clause Eighthly of Section 320 on which Mr. Mehta has placed reliance provides as follows:
The following kinds of hurt only are designated as 'grievous' :. ...Eighthly.-Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
The evidence of Head Constable Prakash. Gopal, P.W. 12, Ex. 28, who gave information to the Police Station Officer, Mehsana shows that at about 12 noon or at 1 P.M. when he returned to village Sobhasan after having patrolled the fields situate in the south of Sobhasan he saw a crowd near the house of Somabhai Bhaichand. He and his four policemen, therefore, went there. The deceased had been lying unconscious there. His son P.W. Galabji was standing there. On an inquiry made by him he was told by P.W. Galabji that a quarrel had taken place between the Rabaris and the watchmen of the village. He, therefore, posted his policemen there, went to a factory in the neighbourhood and gave information to Mehsana Police on telephone of the incident. The evidence of P.W. Batuk-sing read in the light of the order issued by him to Head Constable Pathan, Ex. 30, and the evidence of P.W. Prakash Gopal makes it clear beyond any doubt that Head Constable Prakash Gopal had given him information that the deceased had become unconscious. It is, therefore, quite clear that the information which Head Constable Prakash Gopal had given to Mehsana Police Station was an information which showed that the life of the deceased was in danger. In any case it was capable of showing that he would not be able to follow his ordinary pursuits because he had become unconscious. Secondly, it was an information which required an action to be taken. That is why P.W. Batuksing, the Police Station Officer in charge of Mehsana Police Station issued an order to Head Constable Pathan, Ex. 30, directing him to so to Sobhasan and to take immediate appropriate steps in the matter. When under such circumstances the information was given to the police which required action to be taken it can certainly be held that it was an information of a cognizable offence.
4. In Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat : 1975CriLJ1201 the principle which has been Laid down is that the first information is the earliest report made to the police officer with a view to his taking action in the matter. If the receipt of the information of an incident by the police requires the police to take an action in the matter or to investigate into it, then certainly it becomes the information of a cognizable offence. In the instant case, the information which had reached Mehsana Police showed that some incident had taken place in which the deceased had become unconscious and which required police to take action. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the information which was given by the Head Constable Prakash to P.W. Batuksing was an information of a cognizable offence and, therefore, the first information within the meaning of Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code which led to action being taken by the police. It was after this information was received that the complaint, Ex. 49, was recorded by the police. Since the incident was reported to the police earlier than the complaint, Ex. 49, was recorded and since the police had taken action in the matter any other information received by the police subsequently would be hit by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned trial Judge was in error in holding that the complaint, Ex. 49, was not hit by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code and was admissible in evidence. In our opinion, since it was hit by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code it was inadmissible in evidence and could not have been exhibited by the learned trial Judge. We have therefore ruled it out of our consideration.
5-22. x x x x x x