PRAVIN CHANDRA MODY VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 1965 AIR 1185, 1965 SCR (1) 269
Date of decision: September 15, 1964
Bench: J. K Subba Rao, J. M. Hidyatullah and J.R Mudholkar
Original Copy:
Statutes Involved: Section 173 and 251 of the C.R.P.C and Section 11 of the EC Act
FACTS WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 420
In this case, the appellant is being tried under section 420 of the Indian penal code and
section 7 of the essential commodities act for contravention of some clauses mention
under the iron and steel control order.
The police inspector had filed charges against the opponent under section 173 of the
code of criminal procedure with the offence of cheating and which was also intended to
be given writing of as a public servant as required under section 11 of the essential
commodities act.
Also Read DECRIMINALIZATION OF SECTION 377
The learned magistrate in this case had filed the charges against them
under section 251-a of the criminal procedure Code and after that the appellant had
raised objections to the charges filed against him under different sections. the first
the objection was that as a commodity was obtained he said that the city magistrate of
Secunderabad had no jurisdiction to try him and the second objection was race against
section 11 of the essential commodities act and section 250 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
It was said that a trial of an offense under section 7 is there in section 251 of The
Criminal Procedure Code can’t be applied and their four he wanted the charges to be
the quest he thereafter fields in the session judge who decided not to interfere and after
that he had also moved to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh but
it was this dismissed.
In this case, it is important to note that when a trial of offenses is there under section
420 of the Indian Penal Code that cannot be barred as to its trial under 251 an of the
code of criminal procedure. the provision under 251 mentions that it is to be adopted
in cases of a police report after that, the documents referred to under section 173 which
have been furnished are required to be seen by the magistrate and if not show the
the magistrate must order them to be furnished and even things necessary and the accused is
to be given an opportunity of being hurt the magistrate must consider whether a charge
the accused or not is required and if he comes to the conclusion that the ground of the charges
less than he can discharge the accused.
Issues
The issues in the present case were whether under section 7s to offense and section
11 of the essential commodities are the police report that is required under section 251
a and section 191 of the code of criminal procedure and whether they are triable under
section 251 a or Section 252 of the code of criminal procedure.
The appellant here contended that since the report written by the police officer is under
Section 11 of the essential commodities and hence is not a charge sheet under section
173 of the court it must be equated to a complaint of facts under section 190(1) an of
the criminal procedure code and therefore it is also contended that 420 of the IPC is
triable under the procedure of section 251-A of the CRPC and under the offense of
section 7 of the essential commodities act it is triable only under Section 252 of The
Criminal Procedure Code and hence it is contended that the two charges should be split
up or otherwise the two offenses should be tried under Section 252 of the CRPC. as
the procedure mentioned on section 251 A of The Criminal Procedure Code does not
allow the accused the chance of a second cross-examination and while Section 252 of the
code gives such a chance it causes prejudice to him in the trial of an offense under section 7
of the essential commodities act.
Also Read Ban on Triple Talaq
Judgment
In this case, the court said that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was right in
dismissing and not interfering in the revision of the trial of the case. the court had
dismissed the appeal and the appellant had succeeded in delaying the trial for a
considerable time and therefore held that
i) Cases falling under cls. (a) and (c) of s.190
are triable according to the procedure in s.252 while those falling under el. (b) of that
section are triable under s.251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As the report in the present case was made by a police officer it could not be
taken cognizance of under cls. (a)and(c)which expressly exclude reports or
information given by a police officer. The offences mentioned in such a report
could therefore not be tried under s. 252.
(ii) The report regarding the offense under s.7 was rightly included in the charge-
the sheet under s.173 because both offenses were investigated under Chapter XIV.
The case, therefore, was one instituted on a police report under s.173 and s. 251-A
was applicable.
Read More
Analysis
In this case, an analysis can be made that the court referred to the earlier cases of
Premchand Khetri where a prosecution under section 251 of The Criminal
Procedure Code can only offense after a report under section 173 of the code of
criminal procedure. It also held that in cases where the police officer cannot
investigate a non-cognizable offense without the permission of a magistrate he is not
prevented by anything written in the code where he would be investigating a non-
cognizable offense along with the cognizable offense and when the two arise
from the same facts.
