Wanchoo, C.J. — This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Balotra and has arisen in the following circumstances :

Two goats belonging to Rawal Khanger Singh were stolen on the night between 8th & 9th October, 1948. In that connection Sardara & Mukania went to the Dhani of Achalia and others and made enquiries. It is said that there was an altercation between Sardara & Mukania on the one side and Achalia and others on the other, with the result that Sardara & Mukania were attacked by Achalia and others. The police investigated the matter and prosecuted three persons namely, Achalia, Nagia & Nawia under sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Mukania, however, was not satisfied with that prosecution and filed a complaint against nine persons. These included Achalia, Nagia & Nawia who were prosecuted by the police, two other men Mohabatia & Kirtia and four women. Both the police case as well as the complaint case were before the same Magistrate. The Magistrate did not summon the four women but summoned Mohabatia & Kirtia also to stand their trial. He held a joint trial of the five accused, three of whom were mentioned in the police challan also, and the remaining two only in the complaint of Mukania. Eventually, the Magistrate framed a charge against Achalia only under sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon, there was a revision before the Sessions Judge by Mukania. This revision was directed against the discharge of Nawia, Nagia, Mohabatia & Kirtia and there was also a prayer that all of them should be charged under secs. 148 & 307 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. When the matter came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge he did not go into the question whether the discharge was correct. He relied on Sita Ram vs. The State (1950 R. L. W. 281) and held that the joint trial of all the five accused was illegal, as only three of them were named in the police challan while the other two were mentioned only in the complaint of Mukania. This reference came before a learned single Judge of this court, who felt that the decision in Sita Rams case was not correct, and, therefore, made a reference to a larger bench, the decision in Sita Rams case being by a single Judge. That is how the matter has come before us.

2. There is no doubt that Sita Rams case supports the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In that case the police had sent up a challan against Sita Ram only while the complainant had filed a complaint against Sita Ram as well as Sankardan. The learned Judge observed that since only one accused was implicated in the challan, it was obvious that the complaint which implicated both Sita Ram & Sankardan could not be linked with it. No case has, however, been cited in support of this view. We are of opinion that the law, as stated there, goes too far.

3. Sec. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives jurisdiction to a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence under three circumstances :

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police-officer; and

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police-officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed.

It is open to a Magistrate to act on any one of these three grounds but these three grounds are not, in our opinion, mutually exclusive and it is possible for a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence upon two or more of such grounds e.g. both upon receiving a complaint and on a police report. We may, in this connection, refer to Bharat Kishore Lal Singh Deo vs. Judhistir Modak (A. I. R. 1929 Pat. 473) which is a Full Bench decision. In that case it was held that the alternatives upon which a Magistrate might take proceedings could not be treated as mutually exclusive and it was not correct to say that a Magistrate while taking cognizance of an offence should have done it under some one of the alternati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document