Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. It appears that this Court did not definitely hold in any case that 'police report' in the old Section 190 (1) (b) did not include a report of a non-cognizable offence made by a police officer on his own motion. In In re Nagendra Nath Chakravarti , Mookerjee and Chatterjee, JJ. undoubtedly proceeded on that view, but they did so on the assumption that in three cases cited by them, the expression 'police report' had been "interpreted in this Court to mean a police report within the meaning of Section 170". From the cases themselves it would appear that the assumption was incorrect. In Abdulah Mandal v. Emperor, ILR 40 Cal 854 (F), the first case cited, the report was one of a cognizable offence and all that was said that there having been a report by the police under Section 173, the Magistrate to whom the report was made could have taken cognizance of the offence, which he had not done. In E. O. Lee v. H. L. Adhikary, 14 Cal WN 304 (G), the second case, the report was again of a cognizable offence and all that the Court said was that a police report under Section 173 must set forth the nature of the information against the accused. In the third case, Harihar Roy v. King Emperor, 23 Cal WN 481: ILR 40 Cal 810n: (AIR 1919 Cal 383) (H), what was held was that the report in that case, which was a report of a non-cognizable offence was either a police report within the meaning of Section 190 (1) (b) or a complaint and even if it was the latter, omission to examine the police officer on oath was only an irregularity. In none of these cases or indeed in any other case where the matter was considered, did this Court hold, either directly or indirectly, that 'police report', as contemplated by Section 190 (1) (b), was limited to reports made under Section 173. Indeed, the view taken in 23 Cal WN 481: ILR 46 Cal 810n: (AIR 1919 Cal 383) (H), is typical of the view generally taken in this Court. In Bhairab Chandra v. Emperor, ILR 46 Cal 807: (AIR 1919 Cal 433) (I), for example, it was again: held that a report made by a police officer of a non-cognizable offence was either a police report, as contemplated by Section 190 (1) (b), or a complaint.