Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Raghubar Dayal, J.
R.R.CHARI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Revn. 1892 Of 1949
Decided On : 04/28/1950
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 197 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - INTERPRETATION - MAGISTRATE'S JURISDICTION TO TRY CASE - REVISION OF ORDERS - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a former Regional Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, was being tried for various offenses, including corruption and forgery. The prosecution was sanctioned by the Provincial Government, the Governor General of India, and the Central Government. The applicant challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court, arguing that the court had taken cognizance of the offenses before the necessary sanctions were obtained.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case because the necessary sanctions had been obtained prior to the submission of the charge sheet against the applicant. The court further held that the magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offenses against the applicant prior to the date on which the charge sheet was filed.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case. 2. Whether the magistrate had taken cognizance of the offenses against the applicant prior to the date on which the charge sheet was filed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case because the necessary sanctions had been obtained prior to the submission of the charge sheet against the applicant. The court relied on the provisions of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that no court shall take cognizance of an offense alleged to have been committed by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty except with the previous sanction of the specified authority. The court held that the stage of taking cognizance of an offense under Section 197 arises when a certain person is accused of an offense, and that this stage did not arise prior to the date on which the charge sheet was filed in Court. 2. The court held that the magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offenses against the applicant prior to the date on which the charge sheet was filed. The court relied on the provisions of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that a magistrate may take cognizance of an offense upon receiving a complaint, a report from a police officer, or information from any other person. The court held that the magistrate does not take cognizance of an offense merely because he is informed about the commission of an offense, but only when he decides to proceed against the person accused of having committed that offense.
Final Decision: The court rejected the applicant's revision petition and ordered that the record be sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.
( 1 ) SHRI R. R. Chari formerly Regional Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, U. P. Circle, Kanpur is being tried in the Court of a Magistrate first class for offences under Sections 161, 165, 465, 467, 471 and 109, Penal Code, and Section 120b, Penal Code, read with aforesaid sections and under rules 47 (2) (a) (b) and 81, Defence of India Rules.
( 2 ) ON 6th December 1948, the Provincial Government sanctioned under Section 196a (1) and (2), Criminal P. C. , his prosecution for the offences under Section 120b, Penal Code, and other offences.
( 3 ) ON 3lst January 1949, the Governor General of India sanctioned under Section 197, Criminal p. C. , his prosecution for the various offences.
( 4 ) THE same day the Central Government sanctioned under Section 6, Prevention of Corruption act (Act II [2] of 1947), the institution of criminal proceedings against him for acts which constituted offences under Section 161 and 165, Penal Code.
( 5 ) THE charge sheet against the accused was filed in Court on 25th March 1949.
( 6 ) IT would appear that the necessary sanction had been obtained prior to the submission of the charge sheet by the police against the applicant and that, therefore, the Court was competent to take cognizance of the offences. It is not disputed that if it be held that the Court took cognizance of the offences on 24th March 1949, the Court had jurisdiction to try the accused. It is, however, contended for the applicant that the Court had taken cognizance of the offences against him prior to 6th December 1948.
( 7 ) IT may be mentioned that of the various offences for which the applicant is being tried offences under Section 465, 467 and 471 are non-cognizable offences. Offences under Section 161 and 165, Penal Code, which were non-cognizable offences were made cognizable by Section
( 8 ) PREVENTION of Corruption Act 1947 (Act No. II [2] of 1947) with this restriction that a police officer below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not to investigate any such offence without the order of the Magistrate of the first class or make an arrest therefore without a warrant. On 22nd October I94t Shri L. S. Darbari, Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Department requested the District Magistrate, Kanpur for the issue of a bailable warrant of arrest against Shri r. R. Chari, the applicant, as he was alleged to have disappeared from his post without giving any notice the Government and was in hiding. This report is marked top Secret and indicates that he had been permitted by the District Magistrate to make enquiries into the various offences. The District Magistrate on this report issued bailable warrants.
( 9 ) IN pursuance of those warrants the applicant presented himself before the District Magistrate of Kanpur on 26th November 1947. Shri Darbari, the Anti-Corruption Officer requested the district Magistrate to take fresh sureties, from him. The District Magistrate ordered: "please arrest him. Send him to jail and he can then move the bail application before the trying magistrate " On 1st December 1947, the Special Magistrate appointed for trying corruption cases granted bail to the accused. He granted remands to the police till the charge sheet was submitted.
( 10 ) IT is contended for the applicant that the District Magistrate, Kanpur, took cognizance of the offences on 22nd October 1947, or on 26th November 1947 and that the trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on 1st December 1947. It was therefore urged before the trial magistrate that cognizance of the offences having been taken without proper sanction, the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case and all the proceedings were illegal. The trial Magistrate did not agree with this contention and rejected the application of the accused. It is against this order that this revision is filed.
( 11 ) THE learned counsel relies on the cases reported in Emperor v. Sourindra Mohan, 37 Cal. 412: (11 Cr. L. J. 217), N. L. Carrick v. Empero
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
