Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. The offences which the petitioner is alleged to have committed are stated in FIR No.1 of 2013, registered at Nizamabad Police Station, to be under Sections 153, 153-A and 295-A IPC. The offence alleged against the petitioner in FIR No.5 of 2013 of Osmania University Police Station is under Section 153-A IPC. None of the aforesaid offenses are referred to in Section 39 Cr.P.C and the said provision has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise the statutory obligation under Section 39 Cr.P.C. is only to give information to the nearest Magistrate or police officer. There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. which casts a corresponding obligation on a police officer to register each such information, given by different persons, as separate FIRs.

44. The suo motu complaint, registered as FIR No.1 of 2013 on 02.01.2013 by the II Town Police Station, Nizamabad against the petitioner herein for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 295A IPC, relates to a speech given by him at 8:00 PM on 08.12.2012 at a public meeting in Nizamabad. On the basis of information obtained from a compact disk, containing a video graph of the said meeting, the complaint records certain portions of the said speech. Another complaint lodged by the ninth respondent, before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, alleges that, on 08.12.2012 at 10 PM and on 09.12.2012 at about 9 AM, four TV channels had telecast the highly provocative speech of the petitioner which was derogatory to one religion; and the telecast was seen by him within the local area of Osmania University P.S. The complaint refers to the very same speech delivered by the petitioner on 08.12.2012 at Nizamabad including certain parts thereof which are, allegedly, not referred to in the complaint in FIR No. 1 of 2013 of II Town Police Station, Nizabamad. The complaint of the ninth respondent was referred by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to the Station House Officer, Osmania University Police Station, on 03.01.2013 and was registered thereat as FIR No.5 of 2013 on 04.01.2013 for the offence under Section 153-A IPC.

56. The question which then arises for consideration is whether, in cases where jurisdiction is conferred on two or more Courts, parallel investigations can be carried on by each of the police stations falling within the local area of each such Court having jurisdiction to inquire into and try such offences? It is in this context that the submissions regarding "cause and consequence"

must be examined.
XI. "CAUSE AND CONSEQUENCE" - SECTION 153 IPC READ WITH SECTION 179 AND 196 CR.P.C.

58. On the other hand Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the offence, in relation to a speech attracting Section 153-A, 295-A or 505(2) IPC, is complete when the speech is made; the consequence thereof is immaterial; when the consequence is of relevance, as in Section 153 IPC, it is specifically provided that, if the act were to lead to a consequence, then the offence and punishment would be as provided; the distinction in the language between Section 153 and 153-A is apparent; therefore the offence/crime in relation to the alleged incident can be only one; the contention that Section 153-A IPC inheres the possibility of multiple complaints is premised on a wrong interpretation of Section 179 Cr.P.C. by referring to "cause and consequence" or "cause and effect" theories; Section 179 is attracted only when the "consequence or the effect" combines with "the cause" to complete the offence; unlike Section 153 IPC, the consequence or effect, for the alleged offence under Section 153-A, is irrelevant; and this contention is discountenanced by Section 196 Cr.P.C. which requires prior sanction from the Government for initiating prosecution under the relevant Sections.