Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The learned CMM, vide her order dated 22nd May, 2009 disposed of the application made by the petitioners under Sections 208/209 of Cr.P.C whereunder petitioners had raised contention that compliance of Section 208 and 209 Cr.P.C was Crl. Rev Nos.513,515,572&514 of 2009 Page 3 Of 9 mandatory before the case could be committed to Sessions. The learned CMM observed that case filed against the accused persons on a complaint from Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI in pursuance of authorization given to him by Union of India would not fall in the category of cases instituted other than on a police report as the case was filed after extensive investigation. The accused persons were entitled to the copies of charge sheet filed after investigation and same has been given to them. The case was not a complaint case within the meaning of Section 190(1) (a) Cr.P.C as argued by the counsel for the petitioners.

5. In the grounds of revision, the basic contention raised by the counsel for petitioners is that CMM was under an obligation to direct the complainant to produce all its witnesses, examine them on oath before committing /sending it to the Court of Sessions and the accused persons were to be furnished copies of those statements and examination of witnesses as recorded by the court of CMM free of costs. It was submitted that compliance of Section 208 Cr.P.C was mandatory. Reliance was placed on Rosy and another v State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 367, wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:

6. The arguments advanced by learned senior counsels for the petitioners is fallacious on the face of it and the same is evident from the judgment relied upon by the petitioners. There is no doubt that where a complaint case is filed by a person before the Court of MM, the court has to go through the complaint and if the court considers that police investigation was necessary, the Court may direct police to investigate the matter and submit a report. However, in such a case where court considers that police investigation was not necessary, the court may proceed to record the statements of witnesses of the complainant and after recording statements of witnesses of complainant, the court may, in the light of evidence which has come on record, take Crl. Rev Nos.513,515,572&514 of 2009 Page 5 Of 9 cognizance of the offence committed by the respondents/accused persons. If the court of MM finds that the offences committed by the accused persons were triable by the Court of Sessions, he has to comply with the provisions of Section 208 Cr.P.C and supply copies of statements recorded by him to the accused persons and commit the matter for trial to the Court of Sessions. However, Section 208 Cr.P.C is applicable in those cases where the Magistrate proceeds to record evidence of the witnesses of complainant and has not referred the matter to police for investigation. Such a case which is instituted before the Magistrate is a complaint case. Merely because of the fact that under Official Secrets Act a complaint is to be filed would not mean a case instituted before the Magistrate after thorough investigation and after collection of evidence, would become a complaint case and the Magistrate necessarily has to proceed to record evidence of complainant and his witnesses as envisaged under Section 200 Cr.P.C. This issue has been extensively dealt with by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments. In Satya Narain Musadi and others v State of Bihar (1980) 3 SCC 152; in a case under Essential Commodities Act, the Supreme Court considered the requirement of a report in writing to be made by a public servant to the Magistrate for taking cognizance of offence under the Act. The provisions of Section 11 of Essential Commodities Act are akin to the Section 13(3) of the Officials Secrets Act. The Supreme Court observed that a police officer submitting his report would be a public servant within the meaning of Section 11 of Essential Commodities Act. Since the offences under Essential Commodities Act were cognizable offences, therefore, a police official would be entitled to investigate into such offences without order of a Magistrate and if the police officer proceeds to investigate into the offences, it is obligatory upon him to submit a report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C and such a report would be a police report for the purpose of Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C and if the Magistrate takes cognizance of offences under the Act upon such a report of police officer under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act would be complied with in its entirety. The Supreme Court further observed that a report under Crl. Rev Nos.513,515,572&514 of 2009 Page 6 Of 9 Section 173 Cr.P.C purports to be an opinion of an investigating officer that he has been able to gather sufficient evidence for trial of the accused by the court and in his report he has to state the names of accused persons, names of witnesses, nature of offence and he requests that the case should be tried.

10. After Praveen Chandra Mody (supra), in Satya Narain Mussadi (supra), Supreme Court categorically held that court can take cognizance of offence on such a report and it would be sufficient compliance of Section 11 of Essential Commodities Act.

11. I consider that once detailed investigation into an offence has been conducted by investigating agency and material showing commission of offence by accused is on record and it is this material which is relied upon by prosecution, there is no requirement of recording statements under Section 208 Cr.P.C by a Magistrate and supply of copies under Section 208 Cr.P.C.