A police officer authorized to investigate a cognizable offence can also investigate non-cognizable offences which are integrated with the cognizable offence without the permission of a Magistrate under Section 155(2), CrPC.

These proceedings were initiated on a complaint filed by one Chelliah of T.A.S. Rathnam Brother, The averment found in the complaint is that the accountant of T.A.S. Rathnam Brothers. V. Veerappan, the petitioner, has embezzled their business funds for over several thousands of rupees and that the correct amount is being investigated into and that he should make good any loss that may be determined on account of his handling cash and cheques belonging to the firm. The further allegation is that he has embezzled to the tune of about Rupees 20, 000/-. It is casually stated that the exact embezzlement of amount will be intimated immediately after the final audit is over. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the indictment against the petitioner is that he was misappropriated the funds of the firm to the tune of about three lakhs of rupees by resorting to the modus operandi of falsifying the accounts by forging the signatures of the partners of the firm in the cheques and, therefore, the learned counsel argued that in the present case where predominently the offences alleged against the petitioner are non-cognisable, investigation conducted by the Inspector of Police is against law, that he has not been specially empowered by the Magistrate to take cognisance of the non-cognisable offence, namely, the offences under Sections 467 and 477-A, I.P.C. In otherwards, the learned counsel argued that under the colour of investigating into the cognisable offence under Section 408, I.P.C. the investigating officer investigated into non-cognisable offences and the absence of empowering of the investigating officer by the Magistrate vitiates the entire investigation. The papers in these proceedings appear to have been filed in the early part of 1970. In one sense these proceedings have even become infructuous as it were. But inasmuch as the question of law raised is of a general public importance, I have chosen to deal with it at some length.

2. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has summarised the respective contentions in paragraph 2 to 5 of his judgment with conspicuous perspicacity. The learned Judge has dealt with this vital aspect of the argument advanced in this court in paragraph 6 of his judgment. The learned counsel argued that the two offences under Sections 467 and 477-A, I.P.C. were not even mentioned in the earlier complaint and, therefore, the charge sheet filed as a result of such an illegal investigation would vitiate the subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Undoubtedly the case was originally registered against the petitioner as one involving cognisable offence under Section 408, I.P.C., but in committing and completing the offence under Section 408, I.P.C., it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has resorted to forge some cheques and falsify accounts in support of the forged cheques. But the ultimate end is one of criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant. Therefore, while investigating a cognisable offence, the police will have to stop the investigation, and seek the permission of the court under Section 155(2), Criminal P.C., so the argument ran. Undoubtedly the offence under Section 408, I.P.C. Sections 467 and 477-A, I.P.C. are all integrated offences on the basis of all facts investigated by the concerned investigating officer; they cannot be split into minute parts, for these offences, in my view, get commingled as it were into one another. It would not be possible for any investigating officer to know as to exactly where he ought to stop for seeking permission of the court under Section 155(2), Criminal P.C. I am in entire agreement with the conclusion of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, in paragraph 7 of his judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Labhshankar v. State, 1955 CrLJ 839 = 1955 AIR(Sau) 42 ) and contended that Section 155, Criminal P.C. prohibits a police officer from investig