# Bhattacharjee v. Union of India - **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1233 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-08-29 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. (Second) Bail Application No. 15859 of 2006 - **Bench:** G.P. Srivastva - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhattacharjee-v-union-of-india-40689 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-155Registration of Non Cognizable ReportSubsequently after getting the X-Ray Report-disclosed the cognizable offencedespite of Receiving the copy of injury report- No action taken by police-heldofficer in change empowered to register and investigate-No requirement of permission from concern Magistrate. Held: Para 6 In case the report has already been registered as non cognizable report, thereafter, if any information or material is given by any person to the officer in charge disclosing the cognizable offence, he himself is empowered to register the case as cognizable and to investigate the same. There is no requirement of taking permission or order for investigation from the magistrate concerned. Code of Criminal Procedure-S-155 (2)- Right of Informant NCR Case Registeredafter medical examination 'X-Ray' report left side of the chest 9th Rib found fractured first informant again given information in writing with X- Ray report-whether can the first informant possess any right to given such information and the officer in Charge empowered to consider the same? Held: Para 7 According to the provisions of section 154 Cr. P.C. also the case is registered on the information given to the officer incharge of a police station, relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. In default, the first informant may move an application under section 156(3) for passing the 'order' for doing investigation, it provides a right to the first informant to move an application under section 155(2) Cr. P.C. ## Text 3All] Rahul Kumar Yadav V. State of U.P. 1233 claim that they have been given a hostile discrimination." 24. Apart from the above in the following three decisions, (1) Sri Kant Tripathi Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 3757 (2) Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 JJ (SC) 537 (3) Sanjoy Bhattacharjee Vs. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 283, it has been held by the Apex Court that a wait listed candidate had no vested right to be appointed except when a selected candidate does not join and the waiting list is still operative. In the present case, no waiting list was called by the State Government. In the present case, no candidature was cancelled during the life time of the select list and, therefore, there was no question of inviting any name from the Commission from waiting list. 25. We may, thus, safely conclude that the petitioner does not have any case either on facts or on law and therefore the writ petition being devoid of merits is liavle to be dismissed. 26. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE G.P. SRIVASTVA, J. Criminal Misc. (Second) Bail Application No. 15859 of 2006 Rahul Kumar Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri P.K. Pandey Counsel for the Opposite Party: A.G.A N.D.P.S. Act- Section 8/22-recovery of tablets of 800 gram diazepam-only plea taken in second Bail Application- the applicant in jail since 26.12.05-e.g. less than half of maximum punishment-held- not entitled for release on bail. Held: Para 5 As regards the first ground is concerned an accused cannot be entitled to bail only because he had spent some period in jail not even the half of the maximum punishment, which may attract. (Delivered by Hon'ble G.P. Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. This is second bail application for bail on behalf of applicant Rahul Kumar Yadav who is involved under section 8/22 N.D.P.S Act for having been found in possession of 800 grams Diazapam Tablets kept in 4 packets. 3. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 2.5.06 on merit. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued the first ground that the applicant is in jail since 26.12.2005 therefore he should be released on bail. He has taken the second ground that the real weight of recovered Tablets are 800 gms but the weight of the contraband diazepam in the tablet form is much less than the real actual weight and after 1234 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 calculation it comes less than commercial quantity. 5. As regards the first ground is concerned an accused cannot be entitled to bail only because he had spent some period in jail not even the half of the maximum punishment, which may attract. 6. As regards the next ground is concerned it was available during the disposal of the first bail application as well. There is nothing on record to show that the real weight of contraband is less than the commercial quantity. No ground for second bail application is made out. The application is rejected. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J. Criminal Revision No. 5363 of 2005 Brij Lal Bhar ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-155Registration of Non Cognizable ReportSubsequently after getting the X-Ray Report-disclosed the cognizable offencedespite of Receiving the copy of injury report- No action taken by police-heldofficer in change empowered to register and investigate-No requirement of permission from concern Magistrate. Held: Para 6 In case the report has already been registered as non cognizable report, thereafter, if any information or material is given by any person to the officer in charge disclosing the cognizable offence, he himself is empowered to register the case as cognizable and to investigate the same. There is no requirement of taking permission or order for investigation from the magistrate concerned. Code of Criminal Procedure-S-155 (2)- Right of Informant NCR Case Registeredafter medical examination 'X-Ray' report left side of the chest 9th Rib found fractured first informant again given information in writing with X- Ray report-whether can the first informant possess any right to given such information and the officer in Charge empowered to consider the same? Held: Para 7 According to the provisions of section 154 Cr. P.C. also the case is registered on the information given to the officer incharge of a police station, relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. In default, the first informant may move an application under section 156(3) for passing the 'order' for doing investigation, it provides a right to the first informant to move an application under section 155(2) Cr. P.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.) 1. This revision has been preferred by the revisionist Brij Lal Bhar being aggrieved from the order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. I Jaunpur in case no. Nil of 2005 whereby application under section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the revisionist Brij Lal Bhar lodged a