The court established that failure to obtain proper permission from the Magistrate for investigating non-cognizable offences renders the charge sheet invalid.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The short point that arise for consideration in this petition is whether the investigating officer had not taken the permission of the learned Magistrate under Section 155 of Cr.P.C ., or whether such permission taken by him do not conform to the requirements of Section 155 of Cr.P.C .

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.01.2021 at about 3.50 p.m. the Police Inspector of Sadar Bazar Police Station, Raichur came to the police station along with the seized articles, panchanama and the accused; and lodged the complaint stating that at about 2.00 p.m. he had received the credible information that game of gambling is played near Mahila Samaj and therefore he secured panchas and went to the spot and found that the accused was engaged on the gambling and seeing the police inspector, except accused No.1, all others ran away from the spot. The accused/petitioner was taken to the custody and along with materials found at the spot, mahazar was prepared and then came to the police station and handed over the seized articles, mahazar etc., to the SHO along with the complaint. Thereafter, the SHO registered the case in NC No.2/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of K.P.Act and after obtaining the permission of the learned Magistrate for investigation, lodged the charge sheet.

4. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when a non cognizable offence is alleged, it is necessary that the investigating officer obtains the permission of the Magistrate to investigate.

Such permission to investigate require application of mind by the magistrate. The requirement of law is as stated by this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi V/s The State of Karnataka 1. In the said judgment, this Court has stated as below:

“Therefore, under Rule I, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the police officer or the police officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted.

Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.

i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be 1 2020 (1) KCCR 371 passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case.

iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.

iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition.

Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence.

v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant.”

5. The records reveal