Incomplete police reports cannot support cognizance, and delay condonation needs notice, hearing, and reasons before cognizance.
Cognizance under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be taken on an incomplete police report, because section 173(2) contemplates a report only after investigation is complete and section 190(1)(b) requires a valid police report. An incomplete charge-sheet filed before completion of investigation is not such a report, and any cognizance or process based on it is unsustainable. An order extending limitation under sections 468 and 473 must also be a reasoned judicial order passed before cognizance, after notice to the accused and an opportunity of hearing; a mechanical ex parte order without reasons is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate can take cognizance and issue process on the basis of an incomplete charge-sheet when the investigation had not been completed; (ii) Whether an order condoning delay under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be sustained when passed without notice to the accused, without hearing them and without recording reasons.
Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate can take cognizance and issue process on the basis of an incomplete charge-sheet when the investigation had not been completed.
Analysis: Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contemplates a police report only after completion of investigation, and section 2(r) of the Code defines a police report as a report forwarded under that provision. A report filed before investigation is complete does not answer that description. Cognizance under section 190(1)(b) must therefore rest on a valid police report, and an incomplete charge-sheet cannot be treated as such a report. The Court also found that the Magistrate acted with non-application of mind in taking cognizance on an admittedly incomplete report.
Conclusion: The Magistrate could not validly take cognizance or issue process on the basis of the incomplete charge-sheet, and the order was liable to be quashed.
Issue (ii): Whether an order condoning delay under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be sustained when passed without notice to the accused, without hearing them and without recording reasons.
Analysis: Sections 468 and 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 create a bar of limitation and permit extension only on proper judicial satisfaction. The accused has a right to contest condonation because limitation protects against stale prosecutions and unnecessary harassment. An order under section 473 must be made before cognizance is taken, after giving the accused an opportunity of hearing, and must disclose reasons showing satisfaction that the delay is properly explained or that extension is necessary in the interest of justice. A mechanical order passed behind the back of the accused and without reasons is unsustainable.
Conclusion: The order condoning delay was illegal and without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The criminal applications succeeded, and the impugned orders taking cognizance, issuing process and condoning delay were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Cognizance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be taken on an incomplete police report, and an order extending limitation must be a reasoned judicial order passed after hearing the accused and before cognizance is taken.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
