Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The facts, leading to the case, are that the respondent- Lokayukta Police, Belgaum registered the case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 17 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. The case registered against the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "CrPC) to the effect that the mahazar for conducting raid without an FIR is in contravention of Section 154 CrPC and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point. In support of his submission the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SAMAJA PARIVARTHAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2012 SCW 3323; and judgment of this Court in the case of L. SHANKARAMURTHY v. THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE passed in Criminal Petition No.3213 of 2012 and connected matters disposed of 3rd September 2012. He also referred to another judgment of this Court in the case of RAMESH DESAI AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in Criminal Petition No.15461 of 2011 disposed of on 7th July 2011, wherein it has been held that raid and mahajar and other furtherance shall proceed only after registration of FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the instant case, on 25th June 2011 the respondent-Lokayukta Police, on credible information conducted raid and drawn panchanama. Thereafter, FIR was registered.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta Police submitted that a credible information was received and in order to find out the credibility of the information, a search was made and a raid was conducted and thereafter since undisclosed cash was found, the panchanama was drawn and that does not contravene Section 154 CrPC and without loss of time an FIR was registered. Hence, the same does not contravene the provisions and also the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Further, this Court in the case of L. SHANKARAMURTHY (supra) has ruled that the procedure followed by the police in proceeding to conduct a raid and seizure of incriminating materials without registering the case as required by Section 154 of the CrPC is an abuse of the process of law.

7. In the case of SAMAJA PARIVARTHANA SAMUDAYA (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the machinery of criminal investigation is set into motion by the registration of First Information Report by the specified Police Officer of the jurisdictional Police Station or otherwise and the police officer can proceed to investigate the case only after registration of the case as required by Section 154 of CrPC.

10. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the said Section shall authorise the officers to proceed further for raid or other investigations. Such information is sufficient to call itself as FIR; no matter whatever the source of it. This position is well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 1999(3) SCC

715. Even the credibility of information should find a place in FIR, as that is the starting point of criminal case. The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that the raiding party went to the spot to find out credibility does not vitiate Section 154 CrPC, does not bear any legal force in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMESH KUMARI v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677. At paragraph 3 of the said judgment, it is held that genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. Further, at paragraph 5 of the judgment it is observed that Section 154 of the CrPC is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty-bound to register the case on the basis of any such information disclosing cognizable offence.