2003(2) Crimes 300 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Kolkata High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Tapan Kr. Singh—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 1995
Decided on 10-4-2003

Important Point
High Court was wrong in recording the finding that the facts stated in the G.D. Entry did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154, 157 & 165—Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e)—Offence under—Facts stated in the G.D. Entry—Investigation done and search and seizure was made—High Court quashed on ground that G.D. Entry did not disclose a cognizable offence and all further proceedings were illegal and directed ­return of seized money—Appeal to ­Supreme Court—Whether High Court was right? (No)—Appeal allowed ­accordingly.

       Held : The parties before us did not dispute the legal position that a G.D. Entry may be treated as a First Information Report in an appropriate case, where it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. (Para 16)

       The High Court tell into an error in thinking that the information received by the police could not be treated as a First Information Report since the allegation was vague in as much as it was not stated from whom the sum of rupees one lakh was demanded and accepted. (Para 19)

       In the instant case the information received by the Superintendent of Police. C.B.I, clearly spells out the offence of criminal mis-conduct under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, inasmuch as there is a clear allegation that the respondent has demanded and accepted a sum of rupees one lakh by way of illegal gratification. The allegation is not as vague and bald as the High Court makes it out to be. (Para 21)

       The High Court has also quashed the G.D. Entry and the investigation on the ground that the information did not disclose all the ingredients of the offence, as if the informant is obliged to reproduce the language of the section, which defines "criminal misconduct" in the Prevention of Corruption Act. In our view the law does not require the mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the First Information Report. It is only after a complete investigation that it may be possible to say whether any offence is made out on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating agency. The High Court also held that before conducting the search and seizure the mandatory requirement of Section 165 was not fulfilled inasmuch as the Investigating Officer did not record in writing the grounds for his belief as required by the said section. It is pre-mature at this stage to consider whether search and seizure was done in accordance with law as that is a question which has to be considered by the Court, if the accused is ultimately put up for trial and he challenges the search and seizure made. Similarly, the question as to whether the G.D. Entry, or the F.I.R. formally recorded on October 20, 1990, is the F.I.R. in the case, is a matter which may be similarly agitated before the Court. Where two informations are recorded and it is contended before the Court that the one projected by the prosecution as the F.I.R. is not really the F.I.R. but some other information recorded earlier is the F.I.R, that is a matter which the Court trying the accused has jurisdiction to decide. Similarly, the mentioning of a particular Section in the F.I.R is not by itself conclusive as it is for the Court to frame charges having regard to the material on record. Even if a wrong Section is mentioned in the F.I.R., that does not prevent the Court from framing appropriate charges. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court erred in exercising its revisional jurisdiction to quash the G.D. Entry, the F.I.R. and the investigation undertaken by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. in the facts and circumstances of this case. The High Court also erred in granting relief to the respondent by directing the return of the seized amount and other articles. This appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the appellants are directed to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law and thereafter to take all steps as are required to be taken in law. (Paras 22, 23 & 24)