The main legal point established in the judgment is that an investigation and charge laid without proper authority are illegal and render the proceedings null and void. Additionally, the court emphasized the need for a valid and legal police report as the foundation for the court's jurisdiction to take cognizance.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry, in Crl.R.P. No. 14 of 1978 in confirmation of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the II Class Cannoneer in Crl.M.P. No. 1978 of 1977 in C.C. No. 1327 of 1977.

2. On 14-8-1977 Susheela, an attender working in the Government Hospital, Cannanore, presented a petition before the Superintendent of the Hospital alleging that a person who came to the gate threatened and intimidated her and behave in a disorderly and indecent manner and entered the Hospital etc. The Superintendent held an enquiry and forwarded the petition to the Superintendent of Police station where a Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case. The Head-Constable investigated the case and ultimately a charge was laid under Section 51-A of the Kerala Police Act against the petitioner. Thereupon petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 1970 of 1977 praying for an order of discharge on several grounds. The petition was dismissed by a considered order and the dismissal was affirmed by the Sessions Judge. Interventions now sought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged three contentions before me, namely, (1) that the offence alleged being a non-cognizable one, the Police Officer had no authority to investigate the case and lay a charge-sheet and hence the entire proceedings are null and void, (2) that the allegations do not disclose an offence under Section 51-A of the Kerala Police Act and, (3) that the records do not show that identity of the offender has been properly established.

4. All the decisions cited before me in regard to the first contention arise under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (for short the old Code). Hence I shall first refer to the provisos of the old Code.

5. Section 4(h) of the old Code defined complain as an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action, under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include the report of a police officer. The old Code did not contain definition of a 'police report' or 'report of a police officer'. Section 154 provided for information in cognizable cases which when received shall be entered in a book maintained in the police station. Section 155, clause (1) stated that when information is given to a station house officer regarding a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter it in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Clause (2) stated that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate of the I Class or II Class having power to try such case or commit the same for trial, or of a Presidency Magistrate. Clause (3) stated that any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case, except the power to arrest without warrant, section 156(1) provided for investigation into cognizable cases by a station house officer in pursuance of an information received under Section 154 of the Code. The third clause of the section empowered any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 to order investigation. Section 173(1) and (2) laid down that every investigation under that Chapter (Chap. XIV) shall be completed without unnecessary delay and on completion to the concerned Magistrate a report in the prescribed form setting forth the various details contemplated therein. Clause (4) directed the station house officer to furnish the accused the relevant documents mentioned therein. Section 190 of the Code laid down that a competent magistrate may taken cognizance of any offence in three contingencies, namely. (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting an offence, (b) upon a report in writi