Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The facts common to all these petitions are that, cases were registered against the respective petitioners herein u/s 154 of Cr.P.C. by the Lokayukta police in respect of the offence under sections 8, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short). FIRs came to be registered in all but one case on the basis of the panchanama drawn on 18.5.2012. Insofar as Crl.P.No.2142/12 is concerned, the FIR was registered on 25.2.2012 based on the mahazar drawn on the previous day i.e. on 24.2.2012.

20. In the light of the aforesaid contentions put forward, whether the petitioners have made out a case for this court to interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the point for consideration.

21. From the material that is placed at this juncture and the facts admitted by both sides, it is clear that in all these cases, there was no complaint lodged by any one with the police and secondly, the F.I.Rs. came to be registered under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of the seizure panchanamas drawn in each one of the cases. The further admitted fact is that, in all these cases, seizure panchanamas drawn make no mention whatsoever about the petitioners having either demanded or accepted the bribe amount. The amount said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioners, who are the Sub-Registrars, also is not the bribe amount, even as per the seizure panchanamas and the said amount was returned to the petitioners as it was found to be there own personal amount. Another fact, which is not in dispute, is that, before conducting the seizure panchanamas, no case was registered by the police. In the face of such admitted facts, whether this court can interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be examined.

25. In the absence of the F.I.Rs. mentioning any allegation whatsoever nor is there any material prima facie constituting any of the offences under the P.C.Act being made out from a bare reading of the F.I.Rs., category (1) mentioned in Bajan Lal's case, therefore, gets attracted with all force.

26. Whether the requirement of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. has been satisfied in all these cases is the next point for consideration. A plain reading of Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that in respect of the information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, that information received orally requires to be reduced into writing and if the information is given in writing, then, the police officer in charge of the police station shall have to enter that in a book kept by such officer in such form and only thereafter, investigation can be taken up.

31. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court that in respect of a cognizable offence, the officer in charge is duty bound to reduce the information received by him to writing and then has to register the case and thereafter can proceed with the investigation and he has no other option open to him. Therefore, the police officer in charge is duty bound to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.

32. In the cases of the present petitioners, there has been no such compliance of the mandatory provision of law as contained in Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and the seizure panchanama cannot take the place of complaint or information. Thus, it is clear that the procedure followed by the police officer concerned is contrary to the mandatory provisions as contained in Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.