Emperor Vs. Appa Ragho Bhogle

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 175, 155-information to police of non-cognisable offence-order of magistrate-no report by police to magistrate-prosecution of informants for false information-pendency of the first case-penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 211.;the accused gave information to the police of the commission of a non-cognizable offence. the police obtained the authority of a magistrate, as required by section 155 of the criminal procedure code, to investigate the case. the magistrate directed the police to report to him. the report was not made. the police, however, instituted proceedings against the accused under section 211 of the penal code. the accused were convicted and sentenced. the sessions judge referred the case to the high court on the ground that the prosecution of the accused in the absence of sanction by the magistrate was illegal :-;that the conviction was illegal inasmuch as the first case had not come to an end in the absence of an order of the magistrate under section 173 of the criminal procedure code. - - in substance i dare say that that is perfectly true, although technically it may be that that reason is doubtful because of the circumstance that the proceedings did not go before the magistrate and apparently so far as the police are concerned were not intended to go before him. 2. for that important and fundamental defect i consider that the whole of these proceedings are bad and that the conviction must be set aside......the code requires that it should be made. the case is one that could not be disposed of without the order of the magistrate in some form or another. but no report was made to the magistrate and no order was made by him and the case as a matter of fact has never been disposed of. meantime, however, the police instituted proceedings against the persons who had given the information and prosecuted them under section 211 of the indian penal code. they obtained a conviction before the magistrate. on application in revision to the sessions judge he referred the matter to us. the ground he took was that the trial which took place without the magistrate's sanction was illegal. in substance i dare say that that is perfectly true, although technically it may be that that reason is doubtful because of the circumstance that the proceedings did not go before the magistrate and apparently so far as the police are concerned were not intended to go before him. i mean the proceedings of the investigation into the non-cognizable case. but however that may be, there is another objection which seems to me more fundamental and more cogent than the want of a sanction. it is that, as i have explained, the case had not come to an end and could not come to an end without an order of the magistrate. this being so, it is contrary to the method and the spirit, contrary indeed to the whole system of our criminal procedure, that the police should be allowed to prosecute in the way they have done without ever haying the case disposed of by a magistrate. the point is one not of technicality but of very great importance. one need say little to show how absolutely contrary to our system things would be if the police were allowed, independently of the magistrates, to take proceedings, as they have done here, in cases which had never been disposed of by a magistrate.2. for that important and fundamental defect i consider that the whole of these proceedings are bad and that the conviction must be.....