# Revisionist v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1235
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5363 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40691
- **Pages:** 6

## 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

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
3All] Brij Lal Bhar V. State of U.P. and others 1235
non cognizable report (N.C.R.) no. 78 of
2005 on 27.10.2005. In the said incident
the revisionist was assaulted and received
injuries, he was medically examined on
26.10.2000 at 6.15 p.m., as per medical
examination report he has received three
injuries, Injury no.1 was contusion of left
side of the face. Injury no. 2 was
contusion on the left side of the chest and
injury no. 3 was complaint of painof the
left hip joint. All the injuries caused by
hard and blunt object. Injury no. 1 was
simple in nature and injury no. 2 was kept
under observation and advised for x-ray.
The injury was x- rayed at the district
hospital
Jaunpur
on
28.10.2005,
according to the x-ray report a fracture of
9th rib of left side chest was found. After
obtaining the x-ray report revisionist went
to the police station concerned on
30.10.2005 and handed over the x-ray
report to the station officer of police
station concerned and made a request to
register the case as a cognizable offence
and investigate the same, but after
receiving the x-ray report no action was
taken by the Station Officer of P.S.
Newarhia, thereafter the revisionist filed
an application under section 155(2)
Cr.P.C. in the court of learned A.C. J.M. I
Jaunpur with the prayer that the order
may be passed to investigate N.C.R. No.
78 of 2005,but the same has been rejected
by the learned A.C.J.M. I Jaunpur on
17.11.2005, being aggrieved by order
dated 17.11.2005 the revisionist has filed
the instant revision.

3. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionist and the
learned A.G.A.

It is contended by the learned
counsel for the revisionist:-
1)
that the revisionist was assaulted on
26.10.2005 by the accused, as per medical
examination report injury no. 2 was kept
under observation and advised for x-ray
but the report of the revisionist was
registered as non cognizable case on
27.10.2005 vide N.C.R. No. 78 of 2005.
According to the x-ray report dated
28.10.2005, the 9th rib of the left side
chest was found fractured. The revisionist
went to the police station concerned on
30.10.2004, and handed over the x-ray
report with a prayer that the case may be
registered as cognizable offence and
investigation may be done, but no action
was taken by the Station O fficer of P.S.
Newarhia
whereas
he
was
under
obligation to register a case as cognizable
offence, after receiving the x-ray report.
2)
that the revisionist moved an
application under section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
along with copy of the x-ray report,
mentioning therein that his injuries were
x-rayed in district hospital Jaunpur, his 9th
rib of left side chest was found fractured.
The injury was grievous in nature and he
had handed over the x-ray report to the
police station concerned but no action has
been taken by the police, even then that
application has been rejected by the
learned A.C.J.M. I Jaunpur on 27.11.2005
only on the ground that the revisionist
being the first informant, was not
competent person to move an application
under
section
155(2)
Cr.P.C.,
the
competent authority to move the same
was a Police Officer of the P. S.
concerned. The impugned order dated
17.11.2005
is
illegal
because
the
revisionist being the first informant of the
N.C.R. No.78 of 2005 was also competent
person to move such application under
section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and there was no
such legal bar.
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
3)
that
impugned
order
dated
17.11.2005 may be set aside and Station
Officer P.S. Newarhia may be directed to
register the case as cognizable and
investigate the same in accordance with
the provisions of law.

4. It is opposed by the learned
A.G.A. by submitting:-
1.
That according to the provisions of
section 155 Cr.P.C. the information of
registering N.C.R. is referred to the
magistrate concerned and no police
officer shall investigate a non cognizable
case without the order of the magistrate
having power to try such case or commit
the case for trial Therefore, only in-charge
of the police station concerned was the
competent person to get the permission
from the magistrate concerned for doing
the investigation of a case of non
cognizable offence. The first information
was having no right to move an
application under section 155(2) There is
no illegality in the impugned order dated
17.11.2005 so the same may not be set
aside.

After hearing the learned counsel for the
revisionist and the learned A.G.A.and
from the perusal of the report, it appears
that in the present case two important
"issues" are involved as;
(1) whether the officer in charge of the
police
station
concerned
himself
is
empowered to convert the report of noncognizable offence into the report of
cognizable
offence
upon
receiving
sufficient
material
disclosing
the
commission of a cognizable offence
without the order of the magistrate
concerned.
(2) Whether for getting, the order to
investigation the non-cognizable case, the
first informant has any right to move an
application,
before
the
magistrate
concerned under section 155 (2) Cr. P. C.
or it can only be moved by a police
officer of a police station concerned.

5. To deal with the issue involved it
necessary to discuss and consider the
provisions of section 154.155 and 156 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Section 154 Cr.P.C. envisages as;

"154. Information in cognizable
cases-(1) Every information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence,
if given orally to an officer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to writing
by him or under his direction, and be read
over to the information; and every such
information, whether given in writing or
reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be
signed by the person given it, and the
substance thereof shall be entered in a
book to be kept by such officer in suvh
form as the State Government may
prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as
recorded under sub-section (i) shall be
given forthwith, free of cost, to the
informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on
the part of an officer in charge of a police
station to record the information referred
to in sub-section (i) may send the
substance of such information, in writing
and by post, to the Superintendent of
police concerned who, if satisfied that
such
information
discloses
the
commission of a cognizable offence, shall
either investigate the case himself or
direct an investigation to be made by any
police officer subordinate to him, in the
manner provided by this Code, and such
officer shall have all the powers of an
3All] Brij Lal Bhar V. State of U.P. and others 1237
officer in charge of the police station in
relation to that offence.

Section 155 Cr.P.C. envisages as;

"155. information as to non-cognizable
case and investigation of such cases(1)
when information is given to an officer in
charge of a police station of the
commission within the limits of such
station of a non-cognizable offence, he
shall enter or cause to be entered the
substance of the information in a book to
be kept by such officer in such form as
the State Government may prescribe in
this behalf, and refer the informant to the
Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a
non-cognizable case without order of a
Magistrate having power to try such case
or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such
order may exercise the same powers in
respect of the investigation (except the
power to arrest without warrant) as an
officer in charge of a police station may
exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more
offence of which at least one is
cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be
a cognizable case, notwithstanding that
the order offences are non-cognizable.

Section 156 Cr.P.C. envisages as;

156. Police officer's power to investigate
cognizable case -(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 XII.
(2) No proceedings of a police officer in
any such case shall be at any stage be
called in question on the ground that the
case was one which such officer was not
empowered
under
this
section
to
investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under
section
190
may
order
such
an
investigation as above mentioned."

6. In the light of the above
mentioned provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973, I deal with
issue no. 1. According to the provisions of
section 154 Cr.P.C. an officer in-charge
of a police station, is under obligation to
reduce every information relating to
commission of the cognizable offence in
writing. If any such information is given
to the officer in charge of the police
station, he is under obligation to register
and investigate the same and according to
the provisions of section 156 (1) Cr.P.C.
the officer in-charge of the police station
may without the order of a magistrate,
investigate any cognizable case, in such
situation I am of the view that if any
information or material is given to an
officer in charge of a police station
disclosing the cognizable offence, an
officer in charge of a police station
disclosing the cognizable offence, an
officer in charge of a police station
himself is empowered to register the case
and investigating the same. 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.
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
7. Now I deal with issue no.2.
According to the provision of section 155
Cr.P.C. only officer in charge or any
police
officer
of
a
police
station
concerned can move an application to
obtain the order for investigation from the
magistrate concerned for a non cognizable
case and there is no legal bar for moving
such application by the first informant,
Section 155(2) Cr. P.C. also envisages
that no police officer shall investigate a
non cognizable case without the 'order' of
magistrate, here the word 'order' as
mentioned above, it is relevant to deal
with issue no.2, in the wording of the
provision of section 155 (2) the word
'without order' is used. Therefore, the
order may be passed by the magistrate
concerned on the application of a police
officer concerned or on the application of
the first informant also. According to the
provisions of section 154 Cr. P.C. also the
case is registered on the information given
to the officer in-charge 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.

8. In view of the above discussion
the officer in charge of the police station
Newarhia was under obligation to register
the case as a cognizable offence and to
investigate the same upon receiving the xray report showing fracture of 9th rib of
the left side chest which discloses
cognizable offence and there was no
requirement to obtain an order from the
magistrate concerned. The officer in
charge of P.S. Newarhia has committed a
manifest error by not taking any action on
receiving
the
x-ray
report
by
not
converting the NCR, into cognizable
offence and not doing the investigation.
The learned A.C.J.M. I Jaunpur also
committed the same error by rejecting the
application on 17.11.2005, it appears that
the impugned order has been passed in a
routine manner without considering the
provisions
of
law
whereas
in
the
impugned order itself it has been
mentioned that the copy of the N.C.R. and
medical examination report was perused
even then no finding was recorded in
respect of disclosure of a cognizable
offence whereas according to the x-ray
report 9th rib of left side chest of the
revisionist was fractured, but by citing the
decision of this court in the case of Navin
Chandra Pandey and others Vs. State of
U.P. which is not applicable in the case in
hand and by illegally observing that
power of investigation is to a police
officer and it is not to the first informant.

9. The learned magistrate was
empowered to direct the S.O. police
concerned to investigate the matter but by
not passing such order the learned
magistrate committed a manifest error of
law. The impugned order is illegal, it has
not been passed in accordance with the
provision of law, therefore, the impugned
order dated 17.11.2005 is set aside and
the officer in charge of P.S. Nawarhia
district Jaunpur is directed to convert the
NCR No.78 of 2005 into a cognizable
offence, to investigate the same and to
proceed further in accordance with the
law.

Accordingly this revision is allowed.
---------
3All] Santosh Kumar V. State of U.P. and another 1239
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD: 09-11-2006.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5308 of 2006

Santosh Kumar

...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and another

...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Prevention of food Adulteration. Act-S16-(P)-Lesser
Punishment-Revisionist
found selling eatable substance-without
having valid licence finding recorded by
the Court below confirmed-Quantum of
punishment-without
consideration
of
second
proviso-
held
not
proper
revisionist
already
undergone
the
sentenced for two month punishment of
3
month
R.I.
reduced
to
already
undergone with fine of Rs.500/-.

Held: Para 11

Coming to present revision at hand it is
to be noted that the revisionist is a petty
shopkeeper in a small Kasba of a small
town Jaunpur. There are no allegations
against
him
for
adulteration
or
misbranding of food materials. There are
no allegations against him for selling
insect infested food or food which was
unfit for human consumption. There are
also no allegations that he did not obtain
license intentionally and deliberately.
The shop it seems is the only source of
livelihood of his family. More over the
revisionist
had
been
in
jail
since
6.9.2006 after the dismissal of his appeal
and therefore he had already under gone
two months of imprisonment. In this
view of the matter I am of the opinion
the interest of justice will be served by
reducing his sentence of imprisonment
to the period already under gone with
fine of Rs. Five hundred to be paid within
one month, if not already paid.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

1. The revisionist Santosh Kumar
was tried in Case No. 1055 of 1995, State
Versus Santosh Kumar by ACJM, Court
No. 12, Jaunpur, u/s 7/16 of Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, P.S. Jafrabad,
district Jaunpur. The trial Court finding
the case of the prosecution to be correct,
convicted the revisionist u/s 16 (1) (A) of
PFA Act and sentenced him for three
months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
vide its order dated 15.4.2002. Aggrieved
by the aforesaid order the revisionist
preferred an appeal before the Sessions
Judge Jaunpur, which was registered as
Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2002 Santosh
Kumar versus State of U.P. The aforesaid
appeal was transferred to the court of
Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track
Court III, Jaunpur. The lower appellate
court dismissed the appeal vide its
judgment and order dated 6.9.2006 and
confirmed the conviction and sentenced
awarded by the trial court. The revisionist
there after has challenged the both the
orders in instant criminal revision, which
was filed on 12.9.206.

2. The prosecution case in short is
that Ram Autar Yadav, The Food
Inspector, inspected the shop of the
present revisionist, Santosh Kumar on
4.6.1995 at about 5 P.M. and he found
that the revisionist was selling eatables
without license. The Food Inspector
demanded the license from the revisionist
but he could not produce the same. The
independent witnesses were called by the