R.R. CHARI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 19-03-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1951 
Santosh .Kumar 
Jain 
... 
Th1Stal1 
P111anjali 
SastriJ. 
1'51 
Muabl9. 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1951] 
person. The decision was reversed and Lord Thanker-
ton, delivering the judgment of the Board, observed : 
"In the opinion of their Lordships, the function of sub-
section (2) is merely an illustrative one; the rule-making 
power is conferred by sub-section (1), and "the rules" 
which are referred to in the opening sentence of sub-
section (2) are the rules which are authorised by, and 
made under, sub-section ( 1) ; the provisions of sub-sec-
tion (2) are not restrictive of sub-section (1), as, indeed 
is expressly stated by the words "without prejudice to 
the generality of the powers conferred by sub-sec-
tion (1)". "There can be no doubt-as the learned 
Judge 
himself 
appears 
to have thought-that 
the 
general language of sub-section (1) amply justifies the 
terms of rule 26, and avoids any of the criticisms 
which the learned Judge expressed in relation to sub-
section (2) ". 
This accords with our view of the effect of sub-
sections (l) and (2) of section 3 of the Act. 
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant's bail bond 
is cancelled and he is ordered to surrender. 
Appeal dismissed. 
Agent for the appellant: Rajinder Narain. 
Agent for respondent and Intervener: P. A. Mehta. 
R.R. CHARI 
"· 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
[SHIU Rum.AL KANIA C.J, PATANJALI SASTRI 
and DAS JJ.) 
Indian· Penal Code 
(XLV of 1860), 
SI. 161. 
165-Criminal 
l'rocedure Code, 1898, ss. 190, 197-Preveniion of Corruption Act 
(II of 1947), ss. 3, 6-0fjence under ss. 161 and 165, l.P.C.-War-
ra.nt issued by Magistrate during investigation by 
police-Sanction 
under s. 197, Cr. P. C., not obtained before iS1uing warrant-
Le11ality of trial-When Magistrate takes "cognisance" of offence. 
Un«r •· 
~ of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1947, an 
offcnc:c pllnishable under •· 161 or s. 165 of the Indian Penal Code 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
313 
is a cognisable offence for the purposes of the Crimnial Procedure 
Code subject to the condition that the police shall not investigate 
without an order of .a magistrate of the first class or make an 
ar'rest without a warrant; and when the police apply for a warrant 
of arrest during investigation under s. 3 of the said Act and the 
magistrate issues a 
warrant, he is 
not deemed to have taken 
cognisance of the 
case under s. 190 of the Criminal Procedure 
Code and the fact that sanction of the Government under 
s. 
197 
of the Criminal Procedure Code had not ·been obtained before the 
warrant 
wa:s issued would not vitiate the trial. 
Having regard 
to the wording of s. 3 of the said Act the view that the magistrate 
can issue a warrant only after 
taking cognisance of the 
offence 
under s. 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is unsound. 
Before it can be said that a . magistrate has taken . cognisance 
of an offence under s. 190 (l)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 
he must not only have applied his 
mind to rhie contents of the 
petition but have 
done so for the 
purpose of proceeding 
under 
s. 200 and the subsequent provisions of the Code. 
Where he 
applied 
his mind 
only for 
ordering investigation or issuing 
a 
warrant for purposes of 
investigation he cannot be said to have 
taken cognisance of the offence. 
Emperor v. Sourindra Mohan Chuckel'butty (I.L.R. 37 Cal. '412) 
clistinguished. 
Observations of 
Das 
Gupta J. in Superintendent 
and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abani Kumar 
Ban'er;ee (A.LR. 1950 Cal. 4.37) approved. 
Gopal Mandari v. Emperor (A.LR. 1943 Pat. 245) referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: Appeal {Cri-
minal Appeal No. 1 of 1950) by special leave from an 
order of the High Court of Allahabad. 
N. P. Asthana and N. C. Chatterjee (K. B. Asthana, 
with them) for the appellant. 
P. L. 
Banerjee ' (Shri Ram, with him) for the 
respondent. 
1951. March 19. The judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
KANIA C.J.-This 1s an appeal 
by 
special 
leave 
ctgainst an order of the Allahabad High Court dis-
missing ·the revision petition of the appellant against 
the order of the Special Magistrate refusing to quash 
the proceedings on the ground that the prosecution of 
the appellant inter alia under sections 161 and 165 of 
1951 
R.R. Chari 
v. 
Tht Stott ef 
Uttar .Pradesh. 
....... c.3. 
1951· 
R. l!. Ck'!fi 
v. 
Ths Stateqf 
Ultu PT..Ush, 
lr•nic C.J. 
~14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1951] 
the Indian Penal Code was illegal and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.