Statutory bar on cognizance does not defeat separate trespass and defamation offences independently made out on the same facts.

Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance only of the specified public-justice offence and does not extend by implication to distinct offences arising from the same facts. Where the record disclosed separate acts amounting to trespass on a cremation ground and defamatory imputation against a private , those offences under Sections 297 and 500 IPC remained independently cognizable and triable, even though the same transaction also involved false information to police. On the findings recorded, each offence was complete in its own ingredients, so the statutory bar applicable to the false-information offence did not defeat cognizance or conviction for the separate offences. The convictions for trespass and defamation were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prevented cognizance of offences under Sections 297 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code when the same facts also disclosed an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Whether the offences under Sections 297 and 500 were independently triable and proved on the facts found.

Issue (i): Whether the bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prevented cognizance of offences under Sections 297 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code when the same facts also disclosed an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Section 195 restricts cognizance of specified offences against public justice unless the complaint is made by the public servant concerned, but its operation is confined to those offences alone. Where the facts disclose distinct offences, one requiring such complaint and another not so requiring, the latter is not excluded merely because both arise out of the same transaction. The section cannot be extended by implication so as to bar prosecution for an independent offence against a private individual or for a distinct act of trespass committed after the false report. The prohibition cannot be evaded by a device, but equally it cannot be enlarged beyond its plain terms.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 195 did not prevent cognizance of the offences under Sections 297 and 500 in the present case.

Issue (ii): Whether the offences under Sections 297 and 500 were independently triable and proved on the facts found.

Analysis: The trespass to the cremation ground and removal of the body from the pyre were separate post-report acts and fully answered the ingredients of Section 297. The defamatory imputation was directed against the complainant as a private person and was actionable independently of the false information given to the police. The statutory schemes for Sections 182 and 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not compel a joint complaint by the public servant and the defamed person, because the two offences are distinct in nature and ingredients. On the findings recorded, both offences stood established.

Conclusion: The convictions under Sections 297 and 500 were sustainable on the facts found.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the statutory bar applicable to the false-information offence did not defeat cognizance or conviction for the separate offences of trespass and defamation, and the findings of guilt were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on cognizance of one offence does not preclude cognizance or conviction for another distinct offence disclosed by the same facts, provided the latter is independently complete in its ingredients and is not merely a disguised prosecution for the barred offence.

---