Special statute complaint procedure excludes default bail where cognizance must proceed by authorised complaint, not police report.

Where a special statute permits cognizance only on a complaint by the authorised authority and bars a police report, the general default-bail scheme in Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply in the same manner as it does after an ordinary police investigation. A complaint filed under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 cannot be treated as a police report for default-bail purposes because the Act requires prosecution to proceed by complaint, not under Section 173(2). The Court therefore held that the accused were not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the protection under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was available where cognizance of offences under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 could be taken only on a complaint by the authorised authority. (ii) Whether a complaint filed by the authorised investigating agency under Section 22 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 could be treated as a police report so as to attract the default-bail provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the protection under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was available where cognizance of offences under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 could be taken only on a complaint by the authorised authority.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 creates a special mechanism for cognizance and permits it only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer. The Act also authorises the Appropriate Authority to investigate breaches under Section 13(3)(iv). Where the special statute prescribes the manner of investigation and cognizance and bars the filing of a police report, the general procedure under the Code yields to the special law. In that setting, the pre-cognizance remand scheme in Section 167(2) of the Code does not govern the case in the same manner as it would in an ordinary police investigation culminating in a report under Section 173(2).

Conclusion: The protection under Section 167(2) of the Code was not available in the manner claimed by the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint filed by the authorised investigating agency under Section 22 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 could be treated as a police report so as to attract the default-bail provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: A complaint and a police report are distinct under the Code. The authorised officer under the special Act was empowered to investigate, but was statutorily required to proceed by complaint for cognizance under Section 22 and was not permitted to file a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code. Since the statutory bar made filing of a police report impermissible, the complaint could not be equated with a police report for the purpose of default bail. Even otherwise, the complaint was filed within the 90-day period referred to in Section 167(2), so the claimed entitlement would not arise on the facts.

Conclusion: The complaint could not be treated as a police report, and the appellants were not entitled to default bail.

Final Conclusion: The special procedure under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 controlled the matter, and the accused were not entitled to release on default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute requires cognizance only on a complaint by an authorised authority and bars a police report, the default-bail mechanism tied to a police report under Section 167(2) of the Code does not apply.

---