Back
1990 Supreme(Gau) 94
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
R.K.Manisana Singh, J.
Sagarmal Bhura -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 50 of 1986
Decided On : 25-05-1990
G.Gopal, A.K.Goswami, M.A.Laskar, N.M.Lahiri, G.N.Sahewalla
A liberal approach should be adopted in interpreting the First Information Report, and the substance of the allegations should be considered to determine if a prima facie case is disclosed under the penal provisions. Additionally, an act or omission constituting an offence under multiple enactments allows for prosecution and punishment under any of those enactments but not twice for the same offence.
Headnote:
First Information Report - Criminal Law - The court held that a liberal approach should be adopted in interpreting the First Information Report, and the substance of the allegations should be considered to determine if a prima facie case is disclosed under the penal provisions. The court also ruled that if an act or omission constitutes an offence under multiple enactments, the offender can be prosecuted and punished under any of those enactments but not twice for the same offence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the First Information Report in a case involving the possession of suspected stolen property and the operation of a saw mill without a valid license. The petitioner contended that the First Information Report did not disclose the essential requirements of the penal provisions under section 379 or 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a liberal approach should be adopted in interpreting the First Information Report, and the substance of the allegations should be considered to determine if a prima facie case is disclosed under the penal provisions. The court also ruled that if an act or omission constitutes an offence under multiple enactments, the offender can be prosecuted and punished under any of those enactments but not twice for the same offence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the First Information Report and whether the alleged offences constituted a prima facie case under the penal provisions. Additionally, the jurisdiction of the police to take cognizance of an offence under the Assam Forest Regulations was raised as a contention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a liberal approach should be taken in interpreting the First Information Report, and the substance of the allegations should be considered to determine if a prima facie case is disclosed under the penal provisions. Furthermore, the court clarified that an act or omission constituting an offence under multiple enactments allows for prosecution and punishment under any of those enactments but not twice for the same offence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the observation made by the court was without prejudice to the existing right or claim of the petitioner. The police diary called for was to be sent back immediately.
2. The First Information Report runs :
"I have the honour to report that on 27. 1. 86 in the strength of search warrant issued by District Magistrate I went Super India Match Co. (P) Ltd, for searching suspected stolen property accompanied by Sub-Divisional Magistrate etc. The owner of the mill Sri Sagarmal Bhara was present and I found 58 (fifty eight) n os. of timber logs bearing no forest department hammer marks and such suspected to be stolen property. Moreover the owner was having machinery for sawing of timber as a saw mill bul had no valid licence for saw mill nor he maintained the register A and B which are required to be maintained as per law.
Therefore, he has committed offence U/s 379/411 IPC.
I, therefore, request you kindly register a case U/s, 379/411, IPC. I have taken up the investigation."
3. Mr. N. M. Lahin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the First Information Report does not disclose the essential requirements of section 379 or 411, IPC, Therefore, the First Information Report cannot form the foundation or constitute starting point of lawful investigation. In support of his contention Mr. Lahiri has referred me to the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 949.
4. Section 156 confers on the police power to investigates a cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate either on information given under section 154, Cr. P.C. relating to commission of a cognizable offence, or of their own motion on their own knowledge or other reliable information.
5. The question is-Whether the First Information Report should close prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, if the police \starts investigation on the basis of the First Information Report given under section 154, Cr. P.C. In State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 949, it has been held :
"A First Information Report which dues not allege or disclose that the essential requirements of the penal provision are prima facie, satisfied, cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation."
The Supreme Court has further observed that the question as to whether the First Information Report prima facie discloses an offence under any penal statute has to be decided in the light of the essential requirements of the penal provision.
6. In my judgment in the above quoted passage the principle underlying there does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. A liberal approach is to be adopted on the principle for the following reasons. The First Information Report should receive a liberal construction and not hair-splitting technicalities as sometimes allegations made in the First Information Report are expressed in the words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with the strict interpretation of law. In such a case, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the substance of the allegations made in the report to determine the question, is, whenever the question about lack of requirements is raised, the enquiry should not be so much about the form of the allegations, instead the Court must find out the substance or the real meaning of the allegations.
7. Keeping the above principle in view, let me examine the case on hand. From a close reading of First Information Report, it appears that the requirements of section 379 or 411 may not be expressly made out in accordance with strict interpretation of section 379 or 411, IPC. But, if a mill owner without licence is found in possession of timber log which does not bear forest ham met mark, it prima facie discloses that he is either a thief or has received the goods knowing them to be s
