# STATE OF PUNJAB v. BRI.J LAL PALTA

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 853
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-08-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 34-M of 1965
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, R. S. Bachawat, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-punjab-v-bri-j-lal-palta-4531
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, s. 195(1)(b)-lndian Penal Code, ss.
182, 193, 211-Report of offence lodged with police found to be falselnformant filing complaint before Magistrate on san1e allegations--Cannot.
be charge-sheeted by police for offences under ss..
182, 193
and 211
l.P.C.-Prosecution for these
offences can only· be on
complaint
by
Magistrate-Prosecution by police can proceed i~ ·respect of non-cognizable offences investigated along with offences c~vered by s. l95(i)(b).
The 'respondent filed a First Information Report against certain persons alleging offences committed by them unc'oer ss. 420 and 406 read with
s. 34 and s. 120B I.P.C.
After investigation the police filed a report
under s. 173 Cr. P.C. to the effe<t that while the allegations made by the
respondent were found to be completely false he himself had comm'tted·
offences under ss. 408, 467, 474, 193, 385, 109, 211 and 182 of the
Indian Penal Code.
A charge-sheet was 'Submitted' against him in, respect
df these offences.
Meanwhile the respondent. :filed a oomplaint before
a Magistrate First Class based on the same facts as he had alleged in his
First Information Report.
Thereafter he filed a petition in the High
Court under s. 561A Cr. P.C. for quashing, the
proceedings
pending
against him.
The High Court held in favour of the respondent and
quashed the proceedings in respect of all the charges,
Against the High
Court's judgment the State appealed.
On the· question whether in the
circumstances of the cases. 195(1)(b) was a,bar to.the prosecution of
the respondent in respect of the various offences· fOf which he was chargesheeted.
· ·
HELD : (i) So far as prosecution undei s. Zll. cf the Penal Code
is concerned, once a complaint fi1ed by the inf9,fmarit is being proceeded
with which is based on the same facts and allegations 01\ which the First
Information Report was registered, it is not open .. to ·a Magistrate to take
cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed under that
section unless there has been proper comp1ia~ce··:-viih '!fie provi~ion_s of
s. ·195(1)(b) of the Cr.-P.C.
If the complaint 1s ult:Jmately d·sm1ssed
and the. Magistrate refused to lodge a complaint .under s. 195(1) (b) its
provisions will be defeated or circumvented if. th.e police can move the
Magistrate to take cognizance on a police rcpo'rt Of
itn
offence under
s. 211. [858 H-859 C]
· ·
M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur and Allr., [1967] 1 S.C.R. 520, relied on.
(ii) For the same reasons as in the case· 6f an offence under s. 211
l.P.C., no cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate for the
alle~ed
offence under s. 193 of the Penal Code which is. onei Of the sections mentioned in s. 195 ( 1) (b). [860 Al
(iii) The offence under s. 182 is distinct from the one under s. 211
though the latter is more serious and may include the offence under the
f8rmer section.
The Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under
s. 182 on a complaint in writing of the police officer by virtue of the
I Sup CI/69-8
.
•
•
S54
Sl'l'REME COURT REPORTS
[1969)1 SCR
provisions containeJ in s. l'J5(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C.
But
it
would
A
virtually lead to the circumven:ion of the prov"ions of s. 195(1)(h) if
rhr prnccr<l1ngs under s. J82 can continue \vhcrc the offence discloozd
as in the prl·scnt caso is roverC<f by s. 21 t Indian Penal Code and a
complaint is pcnJing which has l>ccn filed by the informant on the same
f;:icts and allc_g;ition\ as \\'ere contained
in the first
infom1ation
report.
(859 C-HJ
Casc-tt\\' con~idereiJ:
B
.
(iv) In vie\\.· of the above findin£s 1hc prosecution of 1 he respondent
m rcsp·:ict of offences . under ss. 182. 193 and 2 t I I.P.C. could not be
proceeded \vith ;ind the procccdinl!-'i \Vere rightly qua:-ihc<l by the Hii;:h
Court.
Rut the pro~cculion in respect of offences under ss. 467, 471, '385
etc. y.rhich \V'Crc 11on_-CQgni1.ahle co11td be proceeded with. for it is well
settled hy now th:it ,,,hilc invc.,.tigating the commission of :i. cognizable
offt!ncc the police <:i

## Text

•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
BRI.J LAL PALTA
August 26, 1968
(S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, s. 195(1)(b)-lndian Penal Code, ss.
182, 193, 211-Report of offence lodged with police found to be falselnformant filing complaint before Magistrate on san1e allegations--Cannot.
be charge-sheeted by police for offences under ss..
182, 193
and 211
l.P.C.-Prosecution for these
offences can only· be on
complaint
by
Magistrate-Prosecution by police can proceed i~ ·respect of non-cognizable offences investigated along with offences c~vered by s. l95(i)(b).
The 'respondent filed a First Information Report against certain persons alleging offences committed by them unc'oer ss. 420 and 406 read with
s. 34 and s. 120B I.P.C.
After investigation the police filed a report
under s. 173 Cr. P.C. to the effe<t that while the allegations made by the
respondent were found to be completely false he himself had comm'tted·
offences under ss. 408, 467, 474, 193, 385, 109, 211 and 182 of the
Indian Penal Code.
A charge-sheet was 'Submitted' against him in, respect
df these offences.
Meanwhile the respondent. :filed a oomplaint before
a Magistrate First Class based on the same facts as he had alleged in his
First Information Report.
Thereafter he filed a petition in the High
Court under s. 561A Cr. P.C. for quashing, the
proceedings
pending
against him.
The High Court held in favour of the respondent and
quashed the proceedings in respect of all the charges,
Against the High
Court's judgment the State appealed.
On the· question whether in the
circumstances of the cases. 195(1)(b) was a,bar to.the prosecution of
the respondent in respect of the various offences· fOf which he was chargesheeted.
· ·
HELD : (i) So far as prosecution undei s. Zll. cf the Penal Code
is concerned, once a complaint fi1ed by the inf9,fmarit is being proceeded
with which is based on the same facts and allegations 01\ which the First
Information Report was registered, it is not open .. to ·a Magistrate to take
cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed under that
section unless there has been proper comp1ia~ce··:-viih '!fie provi~ion_s of
s. ·195(1)(b) of the Cr.-P.C.
If the complaint 1s ult:Jmately d·sm1ssed
and the. Magistrate refused to lodge a complaint .under s. 195(1) (b) its
provisions will be defeated or circumvented if. th.e police can move the
Magistrate to take cognizance on a police rcpo'rt Of
itn
offence under
s. 211. [858 H-859 C]
· ·
M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur and Allr., [1967] 1 S.C.R. 520, relied on.
(ii) For the same reasons as in the case· 6f an offence under s. 211
l.P.C., no cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate for the
alle~ed
offence under s. 193 of the Penal Code which is. onei Of the sections mentioned in s. 195 ( 1) (b). [860 Al
(iii) The offence under s. 182 is distinct from the one under s. 211
though the latter is more serious and may include the offence under the
f8rmer section.
The Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under
s. 182 on a complaint in writing of the police officer by virtue of the
I Sup CI/69-8
.
•
•
S54
Sl'l'REME COURT REPORTS
[1969)1 SCR
provisions containeJ in s. l'J5(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C.
But
it
would
A
virtually lead to the circumven:ion of the prov"ions of s. 195(1)(h) if
rhr prnccr<l1ngs under s. J82 can continue \vhcrc the offence discloozd
as in the prl·scnt caso is roverC<f by s. 21 t Indian Penal Code and a
complaint is pcnJing which has l>ccn filed by the informant on the same
f;:icts and allc_g;ition\ as \\'ere contained
in the first
infom1ation
report.
(859 C-HJ
Casc-tt\\' con~idereiJ:
B
.
(iv) In vie\\.· of the above findin£s 1hc prosecution of 1 he respondent
m rcsp·:ict of offences . under ss. 182. 193 and 2 t I I.P.C. could not be
proceeded \vith ;ind the procccdinl!-'i \Vere rightly qua:-ihc<l by the Hii;:h
Court.
Rut the pro~cculion in respect of offences under ss. 467, 471, '385
etc. y.rhich \V'Crc 11on_-CQgni1.ahle co11td be proceeded with. for it is well
settled hy now th:it ,,,hilc invc.,.tigating the commission of :i. cognizable
offt!ncc the police <:iftccr is not debarred fron1 invcs1iga1ing any non-cogC
nizablc offence which may arise out of the s:une fact". [860 B-F]
Pravin Chandra :\1nd): v. Sra'r of Andhra Pradesh. (1965] 1 S.C.R.
269, relied on.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal ,\ppeal )lo.
173 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
D
February 4, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Revision
No. 34-M of 1965 ..
R. N. Sachthcy, for the appellant.
The respondent arpeared in person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J.
This is an appeal by special leave against the
Judgment of the High Court of Punjab quashing the proceedings
pendinl! against the respondent in the court of a Magistrate at
Faridkot under ss. 408, 467, 471, 381, 385, 182, 211, 193 and
I 09, Inda in Penal Code.
The factual position as it emerges out of a confused mass of
facts stated in the petitions tiled under s. 5 61 A in the High Court
and the allidavits etc., may be briefly stated.
The respondent
submitted an application to the Assistant Superintendent of Police,
Faridkot, on November 3, 1963 for registration of a case undc;·
ss. 420 and 406 read with ss. 34 l 20B of the Indian Penal Code
against Shibbu Ram Mittal a Director of Shiv General Finance
(P) Ltd., New Delhi, who was originally stated to be residing at
Kot Kapura and certain other persons who were the directors of
<he aforesaid company or connected therewith.
l11e main allegation made by the respondent were that he was induced by Shibbu
Ram Mittal to part with a sum of Rs. 25,000 for the purchase
of property in Delhi wiU1 an assurance thaI the property when
purchased would yield profits.
The payment of this amount \\•a,
aJleged to have been confinned by P. D. Srivastava, Managing
E
F
G
II
iA
B
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB v. B. L. PALTA (Grover,!.)
855
Director of the said company by a letter dated April 28, 1962.
Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 10,000 was alleged to have been
paid over to Om Parkash Gupta Director and Secretary of the
company.
As no property was purchased by Shibbu Ram Mittal
the respondent pressed for the refund of the amount. On October 5, 1963 a sum of Rs. 1,500 was refunded in part payment.
The respond~nt got a report noted in the police station Pahargunj,
New Delhi, on that date regarding the factum of a visit to Delhi
for the purpose of claiming the refund of the entire amount.
According to him he pressed for the payment of the balance of
the amount of Rs. 23,500 but ultimately he was told that no
amount had ever been entrusted by him to Shibbu Ram Mittal
and that all the documents on which he relied were forged.
It
appears that on the basis of the letter addressed by the respondent
to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, First Infomiation Report
No. 4 dated January 16, 1964 was registered at the Police Station
Kotwali, Faridkot.
After investigation Shri Sita Ram, District
Inspector, Bhatinda filed a police report dated March 18, 1965
under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
fa this report
it was stated that as a resnlt of the investigation it had been found
that the case of the respondent as made out in his application on
which the First Information Report had been registered was altogether false and it was the respondent and one Hukam Chand who
had been guilty of various offences including forgery.
A charge
sheet was submitted against them under ss. 408, 467, 474, 193,
385, 109, 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code.
Meanwhile
on 16-2-65 the respondent filed a complaint before a Magistrate,
First Class at Faridkot against Shibbu Ram Mittal and others
making the same allegations which he had made in the application
submitted to the Assistant Superintendent of Police on the basis
·of which the First Information Report No. 4 was registered. The
·respondent filed a petition under s. 561A of the Cr.P.C. in the
High Court for quashing the proceedings pending against him.
Although in that petition a number of points were raised the decision of the High Court rested mainly on the ground that until
the First Information Report which had been registered at the
mstance of the respondent had been cancelled by the Magistrates
it was not open to the police to ask for prosecution of the respondent for the alleged offences.
The High Court also referred to
the complaint which had been filed by the respondent on the
same allegations on which the First Information Report had been
registered and which was still pending.
The learned counsel for the State contends that there is no
warrant for the view expressed by the High Court that once the
First Infonnation Report had been registered it had to be canc~led by the Magistrate either under s. 169 or under any other
section of the Cr.P.C., before a charge sheet could be submitted
disclosing the offences committed by the informant himself
•
•
8 56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] I SCR.
including offences under ss. 182 and 211 of the Penal Code.
It
A
is not necessary to decide this point in view of Dur decision on
the second point.
It has been contended by the respond~nt-this point
was
raised in some form or the other even before the High Courtthat in the presence of the complaint which has been tiled by the
respondent and which is pending before the Magistrate, tl:c police
cannot ask for his prosecution for alleged offences under ss. 182.
211 and 193 of .the Ponal Code.
The respondent ha~ filed an
affidavit dated October 22, 1966 in this Court in which it has been
stated in para 11 that the complaint instituted by h!m had hcen
referred to the Tehsildar, faridkot. who had the powers of
a
Magistrate, 2nd Crass. in Decemhcr 1965 for making a report.
That Magistrate made a report dated January 7, i 966 thal
a
prima facie case had been made out under ss. 420/409 read with
s. 34 of the Penal Code against Shihbu Ram Mittal and others.
l'hereafter al! these accused persons had been ordered to be summoned by Shri Dina Nath, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhatinda, on April 18, 1966 to appear on May 3, 1966. Shibbu Ram
Mittal and others filed :1
R~vision Petition before the Sessions
Judge, Bhatinda, against that order hut their petiti<lfl was rejected.
No counter-affidavit has been filed controverting those facts.
At any rate, it is not disputed that a complaint containing allegauons on the same facts which were alleged in the lette,· of the
respondent to the Assistant Superintendent of Polke or. the hasis
of which the First Information Report was registered b pending
and proceedings in accardance with law are bein!! taken pursuant
thereto.
The respondent has invited our attention to a number of
.:ases, some of which may be noticed, in which a view has heen
taken that durin_g the pendency of a complaint proceedings can·
not be held against the complainant for offences under ss. 182 and
21 l of the Indian Penal Code till the disposal o[ the complaint.
(See Queen Fmpresse v. Sham Lal('); Gari Manda/ v. Emperor('); Munshi lsser & Anr. v. Emperor(') and Lachmi Shaw
v. Emperor(').
In Tayebulla v. Emperor(') a Division Bench
consisting of ~ookerjec and Sheepshanks, JJ. made a distinction
between a case where a false charge has been made to the police
and bas not been followed by judicial investigation thereof by ·he
court and where the police makes a report as to the falsity of the
infonnation and the complainant insists on a judicial investigation.
It was held that in the former case no complaint under
s. 195(l)(b) of the Cr.P.C .. was necessary but in the latter case
it should be deemed that a complaint had been preferred to the
Magistrate and if the Magistrate found the case to he false sane·
(l) 1.1..R. 14 c,1. 70~.
(J)
11 Cr. LJ. J<4
(5)
l.L.R. 4.1 Cal. I 152.
(2\ 4. Cr. L.J. 68.•
(4)
.1) Cr. L.J. 514.
c
D
E
F
G
-
-
A
B
c
-
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB v. B. L. PALTA (Grover, !.)
857
•
tion would be required as the offence could be said to have been
committed in a proceeding in a court.
In Brown v. Anandalat
Mullick(') Sanderson, C.J., delivering the
judgment
of
the
Division Bench went into the matter exhaustively and came to the
conclusion that where an information to the police was followed
by a complaint to the court based on the same allegations and the
same charges and such a complaint had been investigated by the
court sanction or the complaint of the court itself was necessary
for the prosecution of the informant under s. 211 of the Indian
Penal Code even in respect of the false charge made to the
police.
The Madras High Court in K. Dholliah v. King Emperor(
2
)
had to deal with a case in which a person gave information to
the police that certain persons had broken the seal and lock of a
temple and entered it.
After some investigation the police reported to the Magistrate that the case was false.
Thereupon the
original informant pressed the same complaint before the Magistrate who discharged the accused persons under s. 252(2) of the
Cr.P .C., finding the charge against them to be groundless. Subsequently the police filed a complaint against the informant for
giving false information and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted him under s. 182 of the Penal Code.
The High Court
held, setting aside the conviction, that as the complaint disclosed
an offence under s. 211 alleged to have been committed in relation to proceedings in a court the Magistrate could not take
cognizance of the case without a complaint in writing by a Magistrate as required by s. 195(l)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The Madras
Court relied on the Calcutta decisions and referred to Mohammed
Yassin v. King Emperor(') in which the Calcutta view had been
followed.
The Madras Court, however, owing to the conflict
between the various decisions, proceeded to say that where the
charge was confined to an offence under s. 182 it was doubtful
whether a complaint by a Magistrate would be required.
The
Bombay High Court in Bajaji Appaji Kate v.
Emperor(') discussed numerous decisions given by the various High Courts and
the conflict which existed on the question under consideration.
In the Bombay case the facts were more or less similar to the
present case and it was held that for the purpose of s. 195, Cr.P.C.,
the crucial date is the date when the court takes cognizance of the
offence.
So where the alleged false complaint is first made by A
to the police and then to the Court a complaint under s. 211 Penal
Code subsequently filed by the police against A is a complaint of
an offence alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a
proceeding in court and cannot be taken cognizance of except
on a complaint of the court.
In coming to that condusion the
"') I.L.R. 44 Cal. 650.
(2) I.L.R. 54 Mad. 1018.
(3) l.L.R. 4 Patna. 323.
(4)
A.l.R. 1946 7. Born, 7.
•
8 S.8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] J SC.R.
Bombay High Court relied on two reasons; one is that the complaint before the police becomes merged in the subsequent complaint in court as is the view of the Calcutta High Courc and the
other is that by making a complaint to the court the informant
has withdrawn. information from the category of a mere police
proceeding and has raised it to the category of a proceeding in a
court.
This was based on the observation of Ross J., in Mohd.
Yasin's(') case.
Dalal J., in Emperor v. Prag Darr(') took a
view contrary to that of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High
Courts and held that when a false charge was made to the police
and offence under s. 211 of the Penal Code was complete it
could not be said that merely because a similar complaint was
subsequently made to a court the offence was committed in or in
relation to any proceeding in any court within the meaning of
s. 195 ( 1 )(b) of the Cr.P.C.
According to Nora Ram v. Emperor(")
where
an offence
under s. 182 of the Penal Code is complete and
prosecution b
launched under it the proceedings cannot be quashed because the
accused, not conlcnt with a false report to the police, subsequently
makes a false complaint to the Magistrate and !hereby exposes
himself to a prosecution under s. 211 of the Penal Code.
In
Sarup Singh Mural Sin1d1 Chhalri v. Emperor(') Pollock, J. said
that whether it was legal or not it was undesirable that the police
should file a complaint under s. 182 where the infonnant who;c
report had been found to be false by the police had preferred a
complaint to a Magistrate on the same facts.
He had no doubt.
however, that in such circumstances if the charge was under s. 211
a complaint of the court would be necessary.
In Ramdeo v.
State of Rajasthan (') it has been held that if a complaint by the
police in respect to a commission of an offence umler s. 182 of
the Penal Code is filed after the complainant has
preferred a
complaint before the Magistrate the proceedings for prosecution
of the complainant under s. 211 or s. 182 of the Penal Code on
the police complaint arc incompetent.
Some of the reasons given
hy the learned Rajasthan Judge deserve notice.
One is that if
the police files a complaint for prosecution under s. 182 during
!he pcndcncy of a complaint bv the infonnant it will amount to
assertion by the police of a right to prejudge the matter before
judicial determination.
The other is that such
a course will
impinge upon the safeguards provided for regulating and controlling prosecution in respect of offences against administration of
justice a11d contempt of lawful authodty in the Cr.P.C.
A.
c
E
F
G
It seems to us that so far as prosecution under s. 211 of the
Penal Code is concerned. once a complaint filed by the inforH
(I) IL.R. 4 p,an•, 323.
()) A.J.R. 1941 bh. JL
i~)
I I .. \{ :'1 1\ll. 18~
(4)
·\_l_R_ 19VJ '.'\:1μ_ :!:r•
(5)
:\ J.R. 1962 Raj 149.
-
A
B
c
,,
'
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB v. B. L. PALTA (Grover, J.)
.
-
.
; , .. ,.,,
859
•
mant is being proceeded with which is based on the same facts
and allegations on which the First Inform,atio"' was registered it
is not open to a Magistrate to take cogmzance of any offence
alleged to have been committed under thllf section unless there
has been proper compliance with the proviSioris of s. 195(1) (b)
of the Cr.P.C.
It will lead to very anomalous results if any other
view is accepted e.g., if the complaint is ultimately dismissed and
the Magistrate refuses to lodge a complaint u.nder s. 195(1)(b)
its provisions will be defeated or circumvented if the police can
move the Magistrate to take cognizance on a police report of an
offence under s. 211. We are fortifie<Hn i.he view we are taking
by the following observations at page 528 in M. L. Sethi's(')
case:
"The question on which the decision in the present
case hinges is whether it can be held. that anv p·oceedings in any Court existed when thi!t .Magistrate took
cognizance. If any proceeding in any Court existed
and the offence under s. 211, I.P.C., ·in the complaint
filed before him was alleged to have been committed
in
such
a proceeding, or
in relation to
any
such proceeding, the Magistrate would have been
barred from taking cognizance · of the offence.
On
the other hand, if there was no proceeding in any Court
at all in which, or in relation to which, the offence under
s. 211 could have been alleged to have been committed,
this provision barring cognizance would not be attracted
at all."
As regards the position in similar· circlimstances in respe<:t of
an offence under s. 182, the conflict of judicial opinion has
already been noticed.
The text books are full of a vast number
of cases taking one view or the other.
In· our opinion the present case is of the type where the facts stated in the police report
disclosed an offence under s. 211, Indian Penal Code.
It is true
that the offence under s. 182 is distinct frolll! the one under s. 211
though the latter is more serious and may include the offence
under the former section.
The Magistrate can take cognizance
of an offence under s. 182 on a complaint in writing of the police
officer by virtue of the provisions contained in s. 195 ( 1) (a) of the
Cr.P.Code. But it would virtually lead to the circumvention of the
provisions of s. 195 (1 )(b) if the proceedings under s. 182
can continue where the offence disclosed is covered by s. 211,
Indian Penal Code and a complaint is pending which has been
filed by the informant on the same facts and allegations as were
contained in his first information report.
(I) (1967] I S.C.R. 520.
•
960
SUl'REMI! COURT REPORTS
[1969] I S.C.R.
On a parity of reasoning which has prevailed with us with
regard to an offence under s. 211 of the Penal Code no cognizance
can be taken by the Magistrate for the alleged offence under s. 19 3
of the Penal Code which is one of the sections
mentioned
in
s. 195(l)(b).
The next question is whether the other offences in respect of
which a police report and a charge sheet have been submitted
against the respondent can be proceeded with.
The High Court
has quashed the entire procoedings which would include offences
other than those under ss. 182, 211 and 193. Some of them were
even non-cognizable offences i.e. ss. 467, 471, 385 etc.
It is
well-settled by now that while investigating the commission of a
cognizable offence the police officer is not debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence which may arise out of the
same facts.
He can include that non-cogniz:able offence in the
charge-shL-et which he presents for a cognizable offence.
(Vidc
Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of Andhra Pradesh)(').
There
can be no objection therefore to the continuance of proceedings
relating to offences alleged against the respondent other than those
covered by ss. 182, 211 and 193 of the Penal Code.
The respondent sought to raise certain other points which do
not appear to have .been agitated before the High Court.
For
that reason it was considered neither proper nor necessary to go
into them.
We would, however, like to make it clear that to the
extent they are not covered by our judgment it will be open to him
to raise those points before the appropriate courts below.
In the result the appeal is allowed to the extent that the proceedings in respect of offences other than those under ss. 182,
211 and 193 shall continue but the proceedings in relation
to
offences under ss. 182, 211 and 193 alleged to have been committed by the respondent shall stand quashed.
G.C.
A ppea/ allowed.
•
(1)(196511 S.C.R. 269; A.l.R. 1965 S.C. 1185.
A
B
c
D
E
F