1964 (9) TMI 94 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Trial Court's Jurisdiction for Prosecution Under Key Legal Provisions; Dismisses Appeal for Procedural Claims.

Pravin Chandra Mody Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's jurisdiction and procedure under s. 251A CrPC for prosecution under s. 420 IPC and s. 7 ... - Issues:Prosecution under s. 420 IPC and s. 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of Iron and Steel Control Order - Jurisdiction of the Court - Procedure for trial under s. 251A and s. 252 of CrPC - Nature of police report under s. 190 - Applicability of s. 251A to cases initiated on a police report under s. 173.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant faced prosecution under s. 420 IPC and s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of the Iron and Steel Control Order. The objection raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the Court at Secunderabad and the procedure for trial under s. 251A and s. 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The objection based on the report under s. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act was rejected by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, leading to the appeal in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.2. The trial under s. 420 IPC can be conducted under s. 251A of the CrPC, which deals with cases initiated on a police report. The Magistrate must ensure the accused receives the documents under s. 173, consider all evidence, and frame a charge if necessary. On the other hand, s. 252 of the CrPC applies to cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, where the Magistrate hears the complaint and takes evidence in support of the prosecution.3. Under s. 253 of the CrPC, if no case against the accused is made out, the Magistrate can discharge him. If there are grounds for presuming the accused committed an offence, a charge is framed. The accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses if he pleads not guilty.4. The appellant contended that the procedure under s. 251A of the CrPC does not allow for a second cross-examination, causing prejudice in the trial. The distinction between s. 251A and s. 252 was emphasized, suggesting either splitting the charges or trying both offences under the procedure of s. 252.5. The interpretation of a 'police report' under s. 190 was crucial. The report can fall under (i) initiation by a police officer, (ii) information from non-police sources, or (iii) a complaint of fact. The report by a police officer does not equate to a complaint and must follow the procedure under s. 251A of the CrPC.6. Section 252 of the CrPC applies to cases not initiated on a police report. In this case, the prosecution began with a report by a police officer under s. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, satisfying the requirements for cognizance of the offence.7. The report under s. 11 serves to eliminate private individuals from initiating prosecution, requiring a complaint from a public servant. The report by the police officer, though not a charge-sheet, fulfilled the conditions for initiating the prosecution.8. The integrated investigation by the police officer into both cognizable and non-cognizable offences based on the same facts is permissible. The officer can include non-cognizable offences in the charge-sheet along with cognizable ones.9. Precedents were cited to support the view that a prosecution under s. 251A of the CrPC can commence based on a report by a police officer. The report does not need to be a charge-sheet under s. 173, as long as it fulfills the requirements of being initiated by a public servant.10. The High Court rightly declined to interfere with the trial proceedings, and the appeal was dismissed with directions for the trial to proceed expeditiously.11. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to face trial without further delay until the case is disposed of according to law.