The petitioner is the head of the Department of Personnel Management in a public limited company namely, C.G. Elin Power System Ltd. Initially the case against the petitioner was that on 10.9.99 two motor vehicles were requisitioned from him for the purpose of election of Loksabha. As per the allegation, he did not comply with the order and for this reason initially a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner by the police under section 186 IPC and sections 134 and 167 of the Representation of the People Act (for short 'the Act'). At that time the case was pending in the Court of JMFC, Goharganj, District Raisen was registered as RT No. 22/2000. This Court by order dated 4.7.2000 held that the charge sheet filed by the police under section 186 IPC and under section 134 of the Act was liable to be quashed for the reason prima facie no offence was made out. However, this Court held that so far as offence under section 167 of the Act is concerned, the charge was made out prima facie. The offence punishable under section 167 of the Act shall continue against the petitioner.

The petitioner thereafter raised a legal objection to the effect that the police had no powers to file a charge sheet against the applicant as the offence was non-cognizable. The trial Court by the impugned order dated passed in criminal case No. 22/2000 has rejected that contention.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under section 134 (1A) of the Act, an offence punishable under sub-section (1) of section 134 of the Act has been made cognizable by an amendment in the Act. The offence punishable under section 167 of the Act is not made cognizable, therefore. This Court should draw an inference that an offence punishable under section 167 of the Act is non-cognizable. It is further argued that the police has no power to investigate a non-cognizable offence without the permission of the Court and this procedure is mandatory and for this reason the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence as the mandatory procedure was not followed.

Learned counsel for the State. On the other hand points out that as per Explanation to section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint: and the Police Officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant within the meaning of section 2(d) of the CrPC and therefore the report made by the police officer should be treated as a complaint. It has been further argued that under section 155 (4) of the CrPC it has been provided that where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. It has been further argued that initially when the charge sheet was filed, an offence punishable under section 167 of the Act was deemed to be cognizable and consequently this Court, should treat the police report as a complaint. This argument was accepted by the learned Court below.

The question for determination is whether the police by filing a charge sheet regarding an offence which could never have been committed by the petitioner, as held by this Court, can take the benefit of sub-section (4) of section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court has already found by order dated 4.7.2000 passed in MCrC No. 939/2000 that:

“A Careful scrutiny of the entire material on record discloses that prima facie no offence u/s 186 IPC and u/s 134 of the Act are made out against the petitioner. The vehicles were requisitioned by the Returning Officer as per the provisions of section 160(b) of the Act, the infringement of such order is punishable under section 167 of the Act. The petitioner was not entrusted with any other duty in connection with the general elections. Therefore, no offence u/s 134 of the Act is made out. Since no