Police report procedure applies when cognizable and connected non-cognizable offences arise from the same investigation.

A police officer's written report under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act can satisfy the requirement for cognizance without becoming a complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code. The distinction under Section 190 is between cases on a police report and cases on a complaint, and a police report remains outside the definition of complaint. Where a cognizable offence and a connected non-cognizable offence arise from the same facts, the non-cognizable charge may be included in the same charge-sheet. The combined prosecution is therefore governed by the procedure for cases instituted on a police report, and not by the procedure applicable to complaints.

---

---

Issues: Whether a prosecution for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, arising from the same facts and initiated by a police officer's written report under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was triable under the procedure for cases instituted on a police report under Section 251A of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than under the procedure applicable to complaints under Section 252 of that Code.

Analysis: The distinction under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is between proceedings initiated on a police report, on information from persons other than a police officer, and on a complaint. A report by a police officer is not a complaint within Section 4(1)(h) of the Code, which expressly excludes a police officer's report. Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 requires cognizance on a written report by a public servant, and a police officer satisfies that requirement even though the report is not thereby converted into a complaint. Where the police investigate a cognizable offence and a connected non-cognizable offence arises from the same facts, the non-cognizable offence may be included in the charge-sheet. The procedure under Section 251A is therefore attracted to such a combined prosecution, and the contrary view would unduly fragment a single integrated investigation.

Conclusion: The case was properly proceeded with under Section 251A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the objection that Section 252 applied was rejected.

---