http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KESHAV LAL THAKUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/10/1996

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Special leave granted.      On a  report lodged  by Jnanerdra Parchchya, Anu Mandal Padadhikari,  Gooda,   a  case   under  Section  31  of  the Representation of  Peoples Act,   1950 (’Act’ for short) was registered against  Keshav Lal Thakur, the appellant herein, by  Thakur  Gangti  Police  Station  and  on  completion  of investigation a  report in  final form was submitted praying for his  discharge on the ground that the offence was a non- cognizable  one.   On  that   report  the   Chief   Judicial Magistrate, Godda,  took cognizance  as in his view, a prima facies case  was  made  out  against  the    appellant;  and aggrieved thereby  he moved a petition under Section 482 Dr. P.C. before  the Patna  High Court  wherein   he  contended, inter alia,  that the  cognizance was  barred by  limitation under Section  468 Dr.  P.C. A  learned Judge  of  the  High Court, who  entertained the  petition, ultimately  dismissed the same  being of  the view that under Section 473 Dr. P.C. cognizance could  be taken  beyond the period of limitation. The above  order of  the High Court is under challenge us in this appeal.      We need  not go  into the question whether in the facts of the  instant case  the above  view of  the High  Court is proper or  not for  the impugned  proceeding has  got to  be quashed as  neither the  police was  entitled to investigate into  the   offence  in  question  nor  the  Chief  Judicial Magistrate to  take cognizance  upon the report submitted on completion of  such investigation. On the own showing of the police, the  offence under  Section 31  of the  Act  is  non cognizable  and   therefore  the   police  could   not  have registered a  case for such an offence under Section 154 Dr. P.C. of course, the police is entitled to investigate into a non-cognizable offence  pursuant to  an order of a competent Magistrate under  Section 155  (2) Dr. P.C. but, admittedly, no  such   order  was  passed  in  the  instant  case.  That necessarily means, that neither the police could investigate into the  offence in  question nor  submit a report on which the question  of taking  cognizance could have arisen. While on this  point, it  may be  mentioned that  in view  of  the proviso  to   Section  2   (d)  Dr.   P.C.,  which   defines

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

’complaint’,  the   police  is  entitled  to  submit,  after investigation, a  report  a  relating  to  a  non-cognizable offence in  which case  such a report is  to be treated as a ’complaint’  of  the  police  officer  concerned,  but  that explanation will not be available to the prosecution here as that  related   to  a   case  where   the  police  initiates investigation into a cognizable offence - unlike the present one   - but  ultimately finds  that  only  a  non-cognizable offence has been made out.      On the  conclusions as  above we  allow this appeal and quash the impugned proceedings.