Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On perusal of relevant General Diary Entry bearing No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007 and the First Information Report in connection with Bhadreswar P.S. Case No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007, we find that the offence being investigated by the police as disclosed in the General Diary Entry dated August 26, 2007 and the First Information Report dated August 30, 2007 are identical.

8. On careful examination of the entries in General Diary Entry No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007, we find that there is specific recital that the Officer-in-Charge of Bhadreswar Police Station (who is also the informant in connection with FIR No. 196/2007 dated 30.8.2007), after his return to the police station from the place of occurrence, which is Delhi Road, along with arrested persons, namely, the petitioners in this case recorded the General Diary Entry No. 1597 dated August, 26, 2007. In the said General Diary, there is clear recital that on receipt of source information, the vehicle bearing No. WB-25 /8959 was detained along with the petitioners. The said vehicle was carrying 10,000 Its. of S. Oil (locally styled as furnace oil). The vehicle loaded with oil was carrying documents including registration certificate and challan etc. In the General Diary Entry bearing No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007, there is clear recital that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Ramesh Sha failed to produce the challan bearing endorsement of IOCL (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.). It is, also, recorded in the General Diary Entry dated August 26, 2007 that petitioners disclosed before the police officer that they took out the recovered oil from the possession of

10. We are of the view that the recital in General Diary Entry No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007 clearly disclosed commission of cognizable offence. The police officer recording the General Diary Entry specifically stated that the recovered oil was stolen and the documents produced is forged. In the General Diary Entry, there is recital that the petitioners are involved in the commission of offence punishable under Section 379/411/413/414/468/472/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The penal sections attracted in this case as per the record in the General Diary Entry dated August 26, 2007 are for commission of offence of theft and forgery. The offence under Section 379/411/413/414/468 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code are all cognizable offence.

11. It is necessary to point out in this context that in the FIR in connection with Bhadreswar PS FIR No 196/2007, the case was registered over the same occurrence, and in respect of the same offence as mentioned in General Diary Entry No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007 the date of occurrence recorded on General Diary Entry No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007 and FIR No. 196/2007 is same. It is clearly recorded in FIR No. 196/2007:

...I had reason to believe that consignment of 10 kilo like (10,000) litre of S. Oil was a stolen one and it was stolen by the consign (sic consignor) with the help of unknown miscreants from the depot of IOCL, Haldia and on the strength of forged challan....
16. The parties before us did not dispute the legal position that a GD entry may be treated as a First Information Report in an appropriate case, where it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

21. In view of the legal position, as highlighted above, the Officer-in-Charge of the police station is bound to register a case whenever he receives credible information about commission of cognizable offence. In our view, the recital in the General Diary Entry dated August 26, 2007 is the First Information Report about commission of cognizable offence involving the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners as disclosed in the General Diary Entry is clear and specific that they are involved with the commission of offence of theft and forgery. The information recorded in the General Diary Entry No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007, being earlier in point of time, must be treated to be the First Information Report.