1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) is filed to challenge the order dated 16.10.2006 and the notice framed on 28.11.2006 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in respect of a non- cognizable offence under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and the order dated 17.02.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal Revision Petition No.6/2007, whereby the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2006 has been confirmed, and for quashing the proceedings before the learned MM in the aforesaid case.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP in the matter and also perused the trial Court record, which has been summoned for today.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the receipt of some secret information that a person will come near Sarai Rohilla flyover on 27.04.2001 at about 03:00 p.m. with huge quantity of Govt. medicines which are stolen with intention to sell them, it laid a trap at about 02:45 p.m. beneath the flyover. At the appointed time one person came under the flyover holding one bag in his each hand. The informant identified him. On this the said person namely Ashok s/o Kesar Das was overpowered by the police and some medicines bearing the inscription ?MCD Supply Not For Sale? were recovered from his possession. When he was asked to produce ownership proof, he was unable to do so and upon intensive interrogation, he told that all these medicines were stolen from MCD Dispensary and that he had come to sell them. The police registered the First Information Report No.177/2001 against the accused Ashok under Section 411 IPC. The statement of the accused Ashok was recorded under Section 161 of the Code, who disclosed that more persons were involved in this business. At his instance further quantities of such like medicines were recovered from his house and on 29.04.2001 accused Anil Kumar was arrested on the identification of accused Ashok. Thereafter, upon further further investigation of both accused Ashok and Anil Kumar, their other companions including the petitioner herein, namely, Dr. Kamal Kishore Kalra were also traced out. The petitioner was arrested on 01.05.2001 on the identification of accused Ashok and Anil Kumar and at their instance a huge quantity of such like medicines were recovered from their possession.

4. It appears that the charge under Section 411, upon further inquiry, could not be sustained since the MCD hospitals and dispensaries which had been disclosed by the accused as being the ones from where the theft had taken place did not report any case of theft. Consequently, the police while filing the ?Charge Sheet? dated 27.11.2001 before the learned Magistrate stated as follows: ?Since, huge quantity of Govt. medicines as per detail have been recovered from the accused persons in this case regarding which no accused has produced any ownership proof or evidence of their possession in respect of the recovered medicines and hence, it is prayed to this court that section 411 IPC may please be cancelled and cognizance U/s 103 D.P. Act may please be taken. All five accused are on bail granted by the court.

5.On 07.01.2002, the learned magistrate took cognizance against all the accused persons in respect of the offence under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, which is a non-cognizable offence. The order taking cognizance records ?Fresh challan received. Seen. Be checked and registered. I take cognizance of the offence and (as) (sic) shown in the charge sheet u/s 190 (1) (a) CrPC.? Consequently, it appears that the learned Magistrate treated the charge sheet/challan as a complaint of facts which constitutes an offence.

6. At the stage of framing of notice, the petitioner raised an objection before the learned Magistrate contending that the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer was illegal and unwarranted since the alleged offence under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Ac