Modi, J.—This is an application in revision by the accused Taj Khan against an order of the Special Judge, Udaipur, by which he framed a charge against the petitioner under sec. 161 read with sec. 116 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case out of which this revision arises may shortly be stated as follows. On the 10th January, 1952, it is alleged that the accused offered a bribe of Rs. 500/- to the Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Udaipur, with a view to gain his favour in an assessment case relating to the petitioner pending before the said officer. The latter made a telephonic report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur, who caused an investigation to be made, and it appears that the accused was caught almost red-handed. The accused was challaned in the court of the special Judge under sec 161 read with sec. 116 I.P.C. The learned Judge after recording the evidence produced by the prosecution has framed a charge against him under the aforesaid secs. This revision has been preferred against that order

2. It is contended before me that the entire proceedings before the learned Special Judge are illegal and deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel puts his case in this way According to him, an offence under sec. 161 read with sec. 116 I.P.C. is non cognizable, and, therefore, the police had no authority to investigate it and present a charge-sheet against the accused,and it is further argued that on the basis of such a charge-sheet, the learned Judge could not have legally framed a charge against the accused as he has done. It is true that sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code was originally a non-cognizable offence according to Sch. II thereof. By sec. 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (No. II) ¦ of 1947, however, this offence has been made cognizable. This Act was made applicable to the Sate of Rajasthan by the Rajasthan Adaptation of Centra! Laws Ordinance, 1950 (Ordinance No IV of 1950). Sec. 3 has since then been further amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Second Amendment) Act (No. LIX of 1952); but as the offence in the present case is said to have been committed in 1950, the subsequent amendments must be left out of consideration for our present purposes Sec. 3, as it stood before it was amended, was in these terms :

"An offence punishable under sec. 161 or sec. 165 of the Indian Penal Code, shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained therein.

Provided that a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall not investigate any such offence without the order of a Magistrate of the first class or make any arrest therefore without a warrant."

It was at one stage conceded before me that sec. 161 I.P.C. was made a cognizable offence as a result of the Prevention of Corruption Act having come into force but it was argued that the legislature had made no similar provision with regard to sec. 161 read with sec. 116 and, therefore, an offence under the latter section still continued to be a non-cognizable one. It was also argued, however that even so far as sec. 161 was concerned, it was a mistake to call it a cognizable offence, ordinarily so called, because according to the definition of a cognizable offence under sec, 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a cognize a-ble offence is one in which a police officer may, in accordance with the Second Schedule or under any law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. And it was strenuously contended that the proviso appended to sec. 3 according to which "before a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police could investigate any such offence, he must obtain the order of a Magistrate of the First Class and further that he could not make any arrest without a warrant" indicated that it was not a cognizable offence within the meaning of sec. 4(f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking up the second

Click Here to Read the rest of this document