THE STATE OF BIHAR versus CHANDRA BHUSHAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 660 · Decided: 13-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
CHANDRA BHUSHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER, 13, 2000 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Railways Property (Unlawful 
Possession) Act, 1966--Sections 2 (d), 173, 200 and 204/Section 8(1)-
c 
Respondent railway officials caught while unlawfully carrying away cement 
for sale-Inquiry proving the charges-Sub-Inspector of the Railway 
Protection Force filed the Inquiry Report in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-
Respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance 
upon the report submitted by the said Sub-Inspector on the ground of his not 
being ""Police Officer" within the meaning of Section 173 Cr.PC-Magistrate 
D rejected the said challenge-High Court allowed the petition for quashing 
order of the Magistrate filed by the respondent-On Appeal, Held : Mere fact 
of the inquiry being held by an investigating officer of the RPF having some 
( 
similar powers as are possessed by an investigating officer would not make 
I 
a complaint to be a report under Section 173 of the Code-A perusal of the 
! 
I 
Inquiry Report clearly indicates that it was not a report within the meaning 
' 
E of Section 173 of the Code but was a complaint filed before a Magistrate 
7
under Section 200 of the Code-A police report is also a deemed complaint 
\ 
if the investigation by the police is regarding a non-cognizable offence-
Offences under the Act are also non-cognizable which cannot be investigated 
by a Police Officer under CrPC-Thus, Initiation of inquiry for an offence 
F under the Act can only be on the basis of a complaint by an officer of RPF. 
Respondents are the employees of the Indian Railways who, on 25-03-
1987, were caught red handed while carrying away Railway Cement unlawfully 
for sale. An inquiry was held upon which offences under the Railways 
Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 were held proved against the accused 
G persons. An Inquiry Report (Complaint) was filed by an Inspector of the 
Railway Protection Force against the accused persons in the Court of Judicial 
Magistrate, 1st Class. Before the Magistrate, the accused persons filed 
applications praying for their discharge on the ground that the Sub-Inspector, 
RPF who submitted chargesheet against them was not a "Police officer" within 
H the meaning of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, 
660 
STATE OF BIHAR v. C.B. SINGH 
661 
according to tbem, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognil.3nce upon A 
his report submitted in the Court. On the said applications being rejected by 
the Magistrate, the accused persons filed petitions in the High Court for 
quashing the order of the Magistrate which were allowed. Hence these appeals. 
The respondents, conceding that the order of the High Court in 
challenge was unjustifiable, however, prayed that as the respondents had raised B 
various other contentions for quashing of the proceedings before the 
Magistrate, this Court may either consider desirability of adjudicating such 
pleas or remand the case back to the High Court for decisions on the points 
raised but not decided. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELD l : A perusal of the Complaint unambiguously indicates that it 
was not a report within the meaning of Section 173 CrPC but a complaint 
filed before the Magistrate, obviously under Section 200 CrPC. The process 
against the accused appears to have been issued under Section 204 CrPC. 
Merely because the inquiry was held by a member of the Railway Protection D 
Force having some similar powers as are possessed by an investigating officer, 
would not make the complaint to be a report within the meaning of Section 
173 CrPC. (664-A, BJ 
2. Section 2(d) CrPC encompasses a police report also as a deemed 
complaint if the matter is investigated by a police officer regarding the case E 
involving commission of a non-congnizable offence. In such a case, the report 
submitted by a police officer cannot be held to be without jurisdiction merely 
because proceedings were instituted by the police officer after investigation, 
when he had no power to investigate. (664-E] 
3. An officer conducting an enquiry under Section 8(1) of the Railways F 
Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 has not been invested with all powers 
of an officer incharge of a police station making an investigation under 
Chapter XIV of the CrPC. He had no power to file a charge sheet before the 
Magistrate concerned under Section 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.