9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of Magistrate to take cognizance based on an incomplete police report. 2. Requirement of documents under Section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for taking cognizance. 3. Interpretation of the term "taking cognizance" under Section 190 of the CrPC. 4. Impact of Supreme Court precedents on the interpretation of Sections 173(2) and 173(5) of the CrPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of Magistrate to Take Cognizance Based on an Incomplete Police Report The primary issue addressed was whether the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the alleged offence based solely on the charge-sheet without the accompanying documents required under Section 173(5) of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the police report submitted to the Magistrate on 4-10-91 was not accompanied by the necessary documents. The court held that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on 9th November 1991 was not according to law and therefore liable to be quashed. 2. Requirement of Documents Under Section 173(5) of the CrPC for Taking Cognizance Section 173(2) mandates that a police report must include specific details, while Section 173(5) requires the report to be accompanied by all documents and statements the prosecution intends to rely upon. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar, which clarified that a police report under Section 173(2) must be accompanied by the documents specified in Section 173(5) for it to be considered complete. The court reiterated that without these documents, the police report is incomplete, and the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence. 3. Interpretation of the Term "Taking Cognizance" Under Section 190 of the CrPC The court examined the meaning of "taking cognizance" as discussed in various Supreme Court decisions. It noted that taking cognizance involves the Magistrate applying judicial mind to the police report and the accompanying documents to determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observation in State of West Bengal v. Md. Khalid that taking cognizance means taking judicial notice of an offence, which is a prerequisite for initiating judicial proceedings. 4. Impact of Supreme Court Precedents on the Interpretation of Sections 173(2) and 173(5) of the CrPC The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Satya Narain Musadi and other cases, which established that a police report must be complete with the documents specified in Section 173(5) for a Magistrate to take cognizance. The court also referred to decisions from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and its own previous judgments, which supported this interpretation. It concluded that the Magistrate's cognizance based on an incomplete report was invalid. Conclusion and Directions: The court set aside the Magistrate's order dated 9th November 1991 and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Magistrate with the complete police report, including the documents under Section 173(5). The Investigating Agency was instructed to submit the necessary documents within three weeks to enable the Magistrate to comply with the order. The court emphasized the need for expeditious trial and disposal of the case once the Magistrate takes cognizance. Final Order: The Revisional application was disposed of, and any interim stay was vacated. The court ordered that a copy of this order and the lower court records be sent to the lower court immediately.
|
