LexPRAVIN CHANDRA MODY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H PRA VIN CHANDRA MODY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH September 15, 1964 269 (K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) Essential Commodities Act (to of l 955), s. ?-Offence under-Report under s. 11.-Whether aniounts to Police Report requisite under s. 251-A ands. 190(.l)(h) of Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898)-Whether triable under s. 251-A or s. 252 of the Code. The appellant was being tried before a Magistrate for offences under s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The offences arose out of the same set of facts and were investigated together under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Pro- cedure.' At the end of the investigation the police officer filed in respect of the offence of cheating a charge-sheet against the appellant under s. 173 of the Code which was intended to serve also as a report in writing of a public servant as required by s. I! of the Essential Commodities Acl. At the trial the appellant objected that as the police had filed a report under s. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act. the trial of the offe.nce under s. 7 could not be under s. 251-A but should be under s. 252 of the Code of . Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate overruled his objection, and in revision the Sessions Judge and the High Court upheld the Magis- trate's order. Thereupon, the appellant came to the Supreme Court. The appellant's contention in the appeal was that under s. 251-A as well as under cl. (b) of s. 190(1) the report must be a report of a police officer under s. 173 after investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the report in the appellant's case being under s. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, and not a report under s. 173 it could only be treated as a complaint under s. 190(1) (a), and that the procedure applicable was that under s. 252. HELD: (i) Cases falling under els. (a) and (c) of s. 190(1) are triable according to the procedure in s. 252 while those falling under cl. (b) of that section are triable under s. 251-A of the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure. As the report in the present case was made by a police officer it could not be taken cognizance of under cls. (a) and ( c) which expressly exclude report or information given by a police officer. The offences mentioned in such a report could therefore not be tried under s. 252. [272H; 273C-D] (ii) A report under s. 11 is not a charge-sheet, but a report made under s. 173 satisfies the provisions of s. 11 as the police officer who makes it is also 11 public servant. The report regarding the offence under s. 7 was rightly included in the charge-sheet under s. 173 because both the offences were investigated under Chapter XIV. The case therefore was one instituted on a police report under s. 173 and s. 251-A was applicable. [273G; 274D-E; 275C-E] Bhagwati Saran v. Slate of U.P. [1961] 3 S.C.R. 563, Ram Krishna Dalmia v. State A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 172 and Premchaiui Khetry v. Stal< A.LR. 1958 Cal. 213, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1964. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1965] 1 S.CR. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated A S~ptcmber 3. J 963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 132 of 1963 and C~. R. Petition No. 118 of 1963. J. L. Jain, K. Jayaram, for J. R. Gagrat, for the appellant. /\. R. Cha11dhry and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by llidayatullah J. The appellant is being prosecuted under u s. 420, Indian Penal Code and under s. 7 of the Essential Com- modities Act, 1955 for contravention of els. (4) and (5) of the c Iron anJ Steel Control Order. The prose..:ution was commenced by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.l.D., Hyderabad by filing i1gainst him a charge-sheet under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the offence of cheating which was intended to serve also as a report in writing of a public 'ervant as required by s. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Learned City Magistrate of Sccunderabad framed a charge against him under s. 251A(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of both the offences. The appellant then raised two rreliminary objections : the first was that as the commodity was obtained and disposed of at Bombay, the Court at Secunderabad had no jurisdiction to try him. This objection, which woul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.