1996 (10) TMI 491 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Sections 31, 468, 473 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding limitation on taking cognizance of non-cognizable offences.

Summary:
The case involved a report lodged against the appellant under Section 31 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance despite the offence being non-cognizable, leading to a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, citing Section 473 of the CrPC allowing cognizance beyond the limitation period. However, the Supreme Court found that the police had no authority to investigate a non-cognizable offence without a magistrate's order, and thus the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was invalid. The Court emphasized that in this scenario, the police could not register a case or submit a report for a non-cognizable offence without proper authorization. The Court clarified the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences, highlighting that the police can only investigate non-cognizable offences with a magistrate's order. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings, declaring them invalid.