In a PRC, the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offense upon the filing of the final charge-sheet, not the preliminary charge-sheet. The preliminary charge-sheet is not a police report as contemplated by section 173(1) of the CrPC, and the Magistrate cannot take cognizance based on it. The police can continue the investigation after filing the preliminary charge-sheet and submit a final charge-sheet, omitting the names of accused persons if they are satisfied that they were falsely implicated.

It involves a question of Law which is of general application and, therefore, requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench. The trend of the Madras decisions appears to be that till the final charge-sheet is filed, no cognizance could be taken. Mr. Chennakesava Reddy contends that though there are certain observations of the Supreme Court in Tara Singh v. The State1 and Rajagopala Ayyar v. State2, to the effect that the Magistrate takes cognizance on the filing of the preliminary charge-sheet itself and the final charge-sheet is only a supplemental charge-sheet, the facts of this case disclose that a preliminary charge-sheet was filed against A-1 to A-18 and later the Police resumed investigation and filed a final charge-sheet deleting A-16 to A-18. This Mr. Chennakesava Reddy contends the Police cannot do. As I said, the point being one of general applicability, it is necessary to have a ruling of a Division Bench. Accordingly, this revision is referred to a Division Bench.

In pursuance of the above order, this case came on for hearing before the Division Bench.

The Order of the Bench was made by Basi Reddy, J.-In this Criminal Revision case, which has been referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Jaganmohan Reddy, J., as “it involves a question of law which is of general application”, the question that falls for determination is whether in a Preliminary Registrar Case, that is to say, in a case triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the Police can first file what is called a “preliminary charge-sheet” before a Magistrate, who is to hold an inquiry under section 207-A, Criminal Procedure Code, then continue the investigation and eventually file a “final charge-sheet”, deleting the names of some of the persons who had been included in the list of accused in the preliminary charge-sheet; and when such a final charge-sheet is filed, whether the Magistrate can accept it as a Police report under section 173(1), Criminal Procedure Code, and proceed with the preliminary inquiry only against the persons named in the final charge-sheet. In other words, in such a case, does the Magistrate take cognizance of the offence upon the preliminary charge-sheet or upon the final charge-sheet?

In the present case the above question arises in the following way. On 18th May, 1964, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama, filed before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nandigama, what was described as a preliminary charge-sheet in Crime No. 40 of 1964 in respect of offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 302, Indian Penal Code, against 18 persons named therein, who were shown as accused Nos. 1 to 18. The last paragraph of that preliminary charge-sheet reads thus:

“Investigation is not yet complete Final charge-sheet with the complete list of P.Ws. will be submitted after completing the investigation.”

The learned Magistrate took the case on file, numbered it as P.R.C. No. 1 of 1964, remanded to custody such of the accused (including accused No. 18) as had been arrested, and issued non-bailable warrants against the other accused (including accused Nos. 16 and 17). He however, made endorsements on the docket of the case-file adjourning the inquiry from time to time, in order to enable the Police to complete their investigation and file a final charge-sheet.

The Police continued their investigation, examined fresh witnesses and held two identification parades. As a result of this investigation, the Police were apparently satisfied that Accused Nos. 16, 17 and 18 had been falsely implicated. Ultimately after completing the investigation, the Police filed a final charge-sheet on 24th August, 1964, against accused Nos. 1 to 15 only, omitting accused Nos. 16, 17 and 18 from the list of the accused. Thereupon the learned Magistrate released accused 18 from custody, withdrew the non-bailable warrants which had been issued for the arrest of accused Nos. 16 and 17 and fixed a date for the inquiry. Thereupon on