http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: DEVARAPALLl LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: V.NARAYANA REDDY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1976

BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH SHINGAL, P.N. SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1976 AIR 1672            1976 SCR  524  1976 SCC  (3) 252  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1977 SC2401  (10)

ACT:      Code of  Criminal Procedure  1973, Ss.  156(3) and 202- Investigations  under-Difference  between  objects  of  Sec, 190(l)(a) "taking cognizance", meaning of.

HEADNOTE:      On receiving  a complaint  against the  appellants, for allegedly Committing  offences under ss. 147, 148, 307, 395, 448, 378  and 342,  I.P.C., the  Judicial  Magistrate,  F.C. Dharmavaram., forwarded  it to  the police  under s.  156(3) Cr.P.C.  for   investigation   The   appellants   filed   an application in  the High  Court under  s. 482  Cr.P.C. 1973, against the  Magistrate’s order, hut the same was dismissed. it was  contended  before  this  Court  that  the  complaint included offences triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, and under  s. 202(1) Proviso l(a),  1973, the Magistrate was prohibited from directing the police to investigate it, that he was  bound to  proceed with  it  himself  before  issuing process  to   the  accused.  The  appeal  was,  inter  alia, contested on  the ground  that . the powers conferred on the Magistrate under  s. 156(3)  of the  Code are independent of his power  to send  the case for investigation under s. 2021 af the  Code. Section  156(3)  can  be  invoked  before  the Magistrate takes  congnizace of  the case  but s.  202 comes into operation  only after  he start;  dealing with  the com Plaint in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV.      Dismissing the appeal of the Court, ^    HELD: (1) The power to order police investigation under , 156(3)   different  from the power to direct investigation conferred by  s. ’202(1).  ’The.‘ two  operate  in  distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the re-cognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage when  the   Magistrate  is   in  seisin   of  the  case.  An investigation under  s. 202  is "for the purpose or deciding whether or  not there  is sufficient ground for proceeding". its not  to initiate  a fresh  case on police report, but to assist the  Magistrate  in  completing  proceedings  already instituted upon  a complaint  before him. The stage at which s. 202  could become  operative was  never   reached in this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

case. [530-H; 531B]      (2) When  on  receiving  a  complaint,  the  Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under s. 200 and the  succeeding sections  in chapter  XV of  the Code of 1973 he  is said  to have  taken cognizance  of the  offence within  the  meaning  of    s.  190(l)(a).  If  instead  of’ proceeding under  Chapter XV.  he has in the exercise of his discretion, taken  action of  some other  kind, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. [526D-G]      Nirmaljit Singh  Hoon . The State  West Bengal ond Anr. [1973] 3 S. ,53, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No 219 of 1975      (Appeal by  special leave  from the  judgment and order dated the  20th October, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in Criminal Misc. Petition No 1890 of 1975)      P B Basi Reddy, and AV V Nair for the appellants.      M R K Chaudhary and B K Kanta Rao for respondent No 1 525 P. Ram  Reddy, and P Parameshwara Rao, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SARKARIA, J.-Whether in view of Clause (a) of the First Proviso to s, 22(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a Magistrate who receives a complaint, disclosing an offence exclusively triable  by the  Court of  Session, is  debarred from sending  the same to the police for investigation under s. 156(3)  of the Code, is the short question is  that falls to be  determined in  this  appeal  by  special  leave.  The question arises in these circumstances:      Respondent 1  herein made  a complaint on July 26" 1975 before the  Judicial Magistrate,  First Class,  Dharamavaram against the  appellants herein  alleging that. On account of factions existing  village Thippapalli the appellants formed themselves into  an unlawful  assembly,  armed  with  deadly weapon, such  as axes,  spears and  sticks, on  the night of June 20"  1975 and  entered the  houses of  several  persons belonging to  the opposite  party, attacked  the inmates and forcibly took  way  jewels,  paddy,  ground-nuts  and  other valuables of  the total value of two lakhs of rupees. It was further alleged  that the  miscreants thereafter went to the fields  and  removed  parts  of  machinery  worth  over  Rs. 40,000/-, installed  at the wells of their enemies. On these facts it    was  alleged  that  the  accused  had  committed offences under ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 448, 378 and 342 of the  Penal Code.  The offences  under ss. 307 and 395 are exclusively triable  by the Court of Session. The Magistrate on receiving  the complaint  forwarded ii  to the Police for investigation with this endorsement:           "Forwarded under  s. 156(3), Cr. Procedure Code to      the Inspector  of Police, Dharmavaram for investigation      and report on or before 5-8-1975."      The appellants  moved the  High Court of Andhra Pradesh by petition  under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which corresponds to s. 561-A of the old Code) praying that the  order passed by the Magistrate be quashed inasmuch as "it  was illegal,  unjust and  gravely prejudicial to the petitioners". The learned Judge of the High Court. who heard the petition.,  dismissed it  by an  order dated October 20, 1975.      Hence this appeal.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    Mr. Basi  Reddy appearing  for the  appellants contends that the High Court has afield to appreciate the true effect of the changes brought by the Code of 1973. According to the Counsel, under  the new  Code, is  a complaint  discloses an offence  triable   exclusively  be  court  of  Session,  the Magistrate is  bound to  proceed with that complaint himself before issuing  process to  the accused.  The point  pressed into argument  is that clause (a) of the first Proviso to s. 202(1),  the new Code peremptorily prohibits the Magistrate, to direct investigation of such a complaint by the Police or any other person. The cases, Gopal Da v. State of Assam(l),. Jamuna Singh  v. Bhadai  She (2),  referred to  by the  High Court are sought to be distinguished (1) (1961) A.I.R. 19(;1 S. C. 986 (2) [1964] 5 S S.C.R. 37. 526 on the  ground that they were decided under the old Code, s. 21)2 of  which did  not provide for any such ban as has been expressly enacted  in the  1st Proviso  to s. 202 of the new Code.      As against  this, Mr.  Ram Reddy,  whose arguments have been adopted  by Mr.  Chaudahry,  submits  that  the  powers conferred on  the Magistrate under s. 156(3) of the Code are independent of  his power to send the case for investigation under. s.  22 of  the Code;  that the power under s. 156 (3) can be  invoked at a stage when the Magistrate has not taken cognizance of  the case  while s.  202 comes  into operation after the  Magistrate starts  dealing with  the complaint in accordance with  the Provisions  of Chapter  XV. It is urged that since  in the instant case, the Magistrate had sent the complaint  for  police  investigation  without  taking  such cognizance s.  202 including the ar enacted therein, was not attracted. In  the alternative, it is submitted that the ban in the  1st Proviso  to s.  202, becomes operative only when the Magistrate after applying his mind to the allegations in the  com  plaint  and  the  other  material"  including  the statement of  the complainant  and his  witnesses,  if  any, recorded under  s. 200,,  is prima  facie satisfied that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. The  point sough  to be  made out  is that  a  mere allegation in  the complaint  that the  offence committed is one exclusively  triable by  the Court  of Session, does not oust the  jurisdiction of  the Magistrate  to get  the  case investigated  by  the  police  or  other  person.  The  word "appears" according  to Counsel,  imports a  prerequisite or condition  precedent,   the  existence   of  which  must  be objectively   and    judicially   established   before   the prohibition in  the 1st Proviso to s. 202 becomes operative. It is added that in the instant case,, the existance of this condition  precedent  was  not,  and  indeed  could  not  he established.      It appears to us that this appeal can be disposed of on the first ground canvassed by Mr. Ram Reddy.      Before dealing with the contention raised before us, it will be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions of the old and the new Code.      Section 156 of the Code of 1973 reads thus:           "156(1). Any officer in charge of a police station      may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any      cognizable case  Which a Court having jurisdiction over      the local  area within the limits of such station would      have power  to inquire into or try under the provisions      of Chapter XIII.           (2) No  proceeding of a police officer in any such      case shall  at any  stage be  called in question on the      ground that the case was one which such officer was not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

    empowered under this section to investigate,           (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may      order such an investigation as above-mentioned." 527      This provision  is substantially  the same as s. 156 of the Code  of A  1898, excepting  that in  sub-s. (1) for the words "Chapter  XV relating  to  the  place  of  inquiry  or trial," the words "Chapter XIII" have been substituted.      Sections 200  and 202  of the  1898 Code  and the  1973 Code, placed in juxtaposition, read as follows: 1898 Code s. 200:  A Magistrate  taking cognizance      of an offence on complaint shall at      once examine  the complaint and the      witnesses  present,  if  any,  upon      oath  and   the  substance  of  the      examination  shall  be  reduced  to      writing and  shall be signed by the      complainant and  the witnesses, and      also by the Magistrate: Provided as follows:-      (a) when  the complaint  is made in writing, nothing  herein contained shall be deemed  to require  a Magistrate to . examine    the     complainant    before transferring the case under section 192;      (aa) when  the complaint is made in writing, nothing  herein contained shall be deemed  to require the examination of a complainant  in any  case in which the complaint has been made by a Court or by a public servant acting or purporting to act in  the discharge  of  his  official duties:      (b)  where   the  Magistrate  is  a Presidency Magistrate,  such examination may be  on oath or not as the Magistrate in each  case thinks  fit, and where the complaint is made in writing need not be reduced to  writing. but  the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, before the matter of the  complaint is brought before him, require it to be reduced to writing;      (c)  when   the   case   has   been transferred under  section 192  and  the Magistrate  so   transferring   it   has already examined  the  complainant,  the Magistrate to  whom it is so transferred shall not  be bound  to  re-examine  the complainant. Sec. 202 Postponement of issue of Process:- (1)   Any Magistrate,  on receipt  of  a      complaint of an offence of which he      is authorised  to take  cognizance,      or 1973 Code s. 200:  A Magistrate  taking cognizance      of an  offence on  complaint  shall      ex. mine  upon oath the complainant      and the  witnesses present, if any,      and   the    substance   of    such      examination  shall  be  reduced  to      writing and  shall be signed by the      complainant and  the witnesses, and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

    also by the Magistrate. Provided that,  when  the  complaint  is      made  in  writing,  the  Magistrate      need not  examine  the  complainant      and the witnesses- (a)  if   a  public  servant  acting  or      purporting to  act in the discharge      of his  official duties  or a Court      has made the complaint; or (b)   if the  Magistrate makes  over the      case  for   enquiry  or   trial  to      another  Magistrate  under  section      192; Provided further  that if the Magistrate      makes  over  the  case  to  another      Magistrate under  section 192 after      examining the  complainant and  the      witnesses,  the  latter  Magistrate      need not re-examine them. Sec. 202 Postponement of Issue of process:- (1)   Any Magistrate,  on receipt  of  a      complaint of an offence which he is      authorised to take cognizance or 528      which has  been transferred  to him      under  section   192,  may,  if  he      thinks  fit,   for  reasons  to  be      recorded in  writing, postpone  the      issue of process for compelling the      attendance of the person complained      against, and  either  inquire  into      the case  himself or,  if he  is  a      Magistrate other  than a Magistrate      of  the   third  class,  direct  an      inquiry or investigation to be made      by any  Magistrate  subordinate  to      him, or  by a police officer, or by      such other  person as he thinks fit      for the purpose of ascertaining the      truth   or    falsehood   of    the      complaint; Provided that,  save where the complaint      has been  made by  a Court, no such      direction shall  be made unless the      complainant has  been  examined  on      oath  under   the   provisions   of      section 200. (2)  If  any  inquiry  or  investigation      under this  section is  made  by  a      person not  being a Magistrate or a      Police officer.  such person  shall      exercise all  the powers  conferred      by this  Code  on  an  officer  in-      charge of  a Police-station. except      that he shall not have the power to      arrest without warrant. (2A) Any  Magistrate  inquiring  into  a      Case under  this section may, if he      thinks  fit,   take   evidence   of      witnesses on oath. (3)   This section  applies also  to the      police in the towns of Calcutta and      Bombay.      which has  been made  over  to  him

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

    under sec.  192, may  if he  thinks      fit, postpone  the issue of process      against  the   accused  and  either      inquire into  the case  himself  or      direct an  investigation to be made      by a  police  officer  or  by  such      other person  as he thinks fit, for      the purpose  of deciding whether or      not there  is sufficient ground for      proceeding: Provided  that  no  such  direction  for      investigation shall be made:- (a)  where it  appears to the Magistrate      that the  offence complained  of is      triable exclusively by the Court of      Session; or (b)  where the  complaint has  not  been      made  by   a  Court,   unless   the      complaint and the witnesses present      (if any) have been examined on oath      under Section 200. ‘ (2)  If any  inquiry  under  sub-section      (1),  the  Magistrate  may,  if  he      thinks  fit,   take   evidence   of      witnesses on oath : Provided  that  if  it  appears  to  the      Magistrate   that    the    offence      complained    of     is     triable      exclusively   by   the   Court   of      Session, he  shall  call  upon  the      complainants  to  produce  all  his      witnesses and examine them on oath. (3)  If  an   investigation  under  sub-      section (I) is made by a person not      being a  police officer,  he  shall      have for that investigation all the      powers conferred by this Code on an      officer  incharge   of   a   police      station except  the power to arrest      without warrant.      Before proceeding further, we may have a look at s. 190 of the  new Code.  This section  is captioned "Cognizance of offences by  Magistrates". This  section so  far  as  it  is material for our purpose, n provides:           "Subject to  the provisions  of this  Chapter, any      Magistrate of the First Class and any Magistrate of the      second class  specially empowered  in this  behalf  may      take cognizance of any offence-           (a)  upon receiving  a complaint  of  facts  which                constitute such offence; 529           (b)  upon a police report of such facts;           (c)  upon information  received  from  any  person                other than  a police officer, or upon his own                knowledge,  that   such  offence   has   been                committed.      (2) ..........................      It is  well settled  that when  a Magistrate receives a complaint, he  is not  bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in  the complaint,  disclose the  commission  of  an offence. This  is clear  from the use of the words "may take cognizance" which  in the context in which they occur cannot be equated  with must take cognizance". The word "may" gives a discretion  to the  Magistrate in  the  matter.  If  on  a reading of  the complaint  he  finds  that  the  allegations

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

therein disclose  a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint  to the  police  for  investigation  under  s. 156(3) will  be conducive  to justice  and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which  was  primarily  the  duty  of  the  police  to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.      This raises  the incidental  question: What is meant by "taking cognizance  of an  offence‘’ by  a Magistrate within the contemplation  of s.  190? This  expression has not been defined in  the Code.  But from  the scheme of the Code, the content and  marginal heading  of s.  190 and the caption of Chapter XIV  under which  ss. 190  to 199 occur, it is clear that a  case can  be said  to be  instituted in a Court only when the  Court takes  cognizance  of  the  offence  alleged therein. The  was in  which such cognizance can be taken are set out  in clauses  (a), (b)  and (c)  of  Section  190(1). Whether the  Magistrate has  or has  not taken cognizance of the  offence   will  depend  on  the  circumstances  of  the particular case  including the  mode in  which the  case  is sought to  be instituted  and the  nature of the preliminary action, if  any, taken  by the Magistrate. Broadly speaking, when on  receiving a  complaint, the  Magistrate applies his mind for  the purposes  of proceeding  under s.  200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to  have taken  cognizance of  the offence  within  the meaning of  s. 190(l)(a).  If, instead  of proceeding  under Chapter  XV,   he  has  in  the  judicial  exercise  of  his discretion, taken action of some other kind, such as issuing a search  warrant  for  the  purpose  of  investigation,  or ordering investigation  by the  police under  s. 156(3),  he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence.      This position  of law  has been  explained  in  several cases by  this Court.  the latest being Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and anr(1).      The position  under the Code of 1898 with regard to the powers of  a  Magistrate  having  jurisdiction,  to  send  a complaint disclosing  a cognizable  offence-whether  or  not triable exclusively by the Court of      (1) [1973] 3 S.C.C. 753.      36-833SCI/76 530 Session-to the  Police for  investigation under  s.  156(3)" remains unchanged  under the  Code of  1973. The distinction between a  police investigation  ordered under s. 156(3) and the one  directed under  s. 202,  has also  been  maintained under the  new Code; but a rider has been clamped by the 1st Proviso to  s. 202(1)  that if  it appears to the Magistrate that an  offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session has been  committed, he  shall not make any direction for in vestigation.      Section  156(3)   occurs  in  Chapter  XII,  under  the caption: "Information  to the  Police and  their  powers  to investigate"; while  s. 202 is in Chapter XV which bears the heading "Of  complaints to  Magistrates". The power It order police investigation  under s.  156(3) is different from the power to  direct investigation  conferred by  s. 202(1). The two operate  in distinct  spheres at  different stages.  The first is exercisable at the pre cognizance stage, the second at the  post-cognizance stage  when  the  Magistrate  is  in seisin of  the case.  ’That is  to say  in  the  case  of  a complaint regarding  the commission of a cognizable offence, the power  under s.  156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before  he   takes  cognizance   of  the  offence  under  s. 190(1)(a). But  if he once takes such cognizance and embarks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

upon the  procedure  embodied  in  Chapter  XV,  he  is  not competent to  switch back  to the  pre-cognizance stage  and avail of  s. 156(3).  It may  be noted further that an order made under  sub-section (3) of s. 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder  or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary  powers of investigation under s. 156(1). Such an investigation  embraces  the  entire  continuous  process which begins  with the  collection of  evidence under s. 156 and ends  with a  report or chargesheet under s. 173. On the other hand s. 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been  collected  by  the  Magistrate  in  proceedings  under Chapter XV,  but the  same is  deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a  situation, the  Magistrate is empowered under s. 202 to direct  within the  limits circumscribed by that section, an investigation "for the purpose of deciding whether or not here is  sufficient ground for proceeding ". Thus the object of an  investigation under s. 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on  police report  but  to  assist  the  Magistrate  in completing proceedings  already instituted  upon a complaint before him.      In the  instant case  the Magistrate  did not apply his mind to  the complaint  for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground  for proceeding;  but only for ordering an investigation under  s. 156(3). He did not bring into motion the  machinery  of  Chapter  XV.  He  did  not  examine  the complaint or  his witnesses  under s. 200, Cr.P.C., which is the first  step  in  the  procedure  prescribed  under  that Chapter. The  question of  taking  the  next  step  of  that procedure envisaged  in s.  202 did  not arise.  Instead  of taking cognizance of the offence he has., in the exercise of his discretion,  sent the  complaint  for  investigation  by police under s. 156. 531      This being the position, s. 202(1), 1st Proviso was not attracted. A Indeed, it is not necessary for the decision of this case  to express  any final  opinion on  the ambit  and scope of  the 1st  Proviso to s. 202(1) of the Code of 1973. Suffice it  to say,  the stage  at which s. 202 could become operative was  never reached in this case. We have therefore in keeping  with the well-established practice of the Court, decided only  that much which was essential for the disposal of this appeal, and no more.      For the  foregoing  reasons,  we  answer  the  question posed" in the negative, and dismiss this appeal. M.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 532