JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This revision has been preferred by the revisionist Brij Lal Bhar being aggrieved from the order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. I Jaunpur in case No. Nil of 2005 whereby application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the revisionist Brij Lai Bhar lodged a non cognizable report (N.C.R.) No. 78 of 2005 on 27.10.2005 at P.S. Newarhia, district Jaunpur, in respect of the offence which was committed on 26.10.2005. In the said incident the revisionist was assaulted and received injuries, he was medically examined on 26.10.2000 at 6.15 p.m., as per medical examination report he has received three injuries, Injury no, 1 was contusion of left side of the face. Injury no, 2 was contusion on the left side of the chest and injury No. 3 was complaint of pain of the left hip joint. All the injuries caused by hard and blunt object. Injury No. 1 was simple in nature and injury No. 2 was kept under observation and advised for x-ray. The injury was x-rayed at the district hospital Jaunpur on 28.10.2005, according to the x-ray report a fracture of 9th rib of left side chest was found. After obtaining the x-ray report revisionist went to the police station concerned on 30.10.2005 and handed over the x-ray report to the station officer of police station concerned and made a request to register the case as a cognizable offence and investigate the same, but after receiving the x-ray report no action was taken by the Station Officer of P.S. Newarhia, thereafter the revisionist filed an application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. in the court of learned A.C.J.M. I Jaunpur with the prayer that the order may be passed to investigate N.C.R. No. 78 of 2005, but the same has been rejected by the learned A.C.J.M, I Jaunpur, on 17.11.2005, being aggrieved by order dated 17.11.2005 the revisionist has filed the instant revision.
3. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist:
1) that the revisionist was assaulted on 26.10.2005 by the accused, as per medical examination report injury No. 2 was kept under observation and advised for x-ray but the report of the revisionist was registered as non cognizable case on 27.10.2005 vide N.C.R. No. 78 of 2005. According to the x-ray report dated 28.10.2005, the 9th rib of the left side chest was found fractured. The revisionist went to the police station concerned on 30.10.2004, and handed over the x-ray report with a prayer that the case may be registered as cognizable offence and investigation may be done, but no action was taken by the Station Officer of P.S. Newarhia whereas he was under obligation to register a case as cognizable offence, after receiving the x-ray report.
2) that the revisionist moved an application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. along with copy of the x-ray report, mentioning therein that his injuries were x-rayed in district hospital Jaunpur, his 9th rib of left side chest was found fractured, The injury was grievous in nature and he had handed over the x-ray report to the police station concerned but no action has been taken by the police, even then that application has been rejected by the learned A.C.J.M. I Jaunpur on 27.11.2005 only on the ground that the revisionist being the first informant, was not competent person to move an application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C, the competent authority to move the same was a Police Officer of the P.S. concerned. The impugned order dated 17.11.2005 is illegal because the revisionist being the first informant of the N.C.R. No. 78 of 2005 was also competent person to move such application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and there was no such legal bar.
3) that impugned order dated 17.11.2005 may be set aside and Station Officer P.S. Newarhia may be directed to register the case as cognizable and investigate the same in accordance with the provisions of law.
5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting:
1. That according to the provisions of Section 155 Cr.P.C. the information of registering N.C.R. is referred to the magistrate concerned and no police officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the order of the magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial Therefore, only in-charge of the police station concerned was the competent person to get the permission from the magistrate concerned for doing the investigation of a case of non cognizable offence. The first informant was having no right to move an application under Section 155(2) There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 17.11.2005 so the same may not be set aside.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the report, it appears that in the present case two important "issues" are involved as;
(1) whether the officer in charge of the police station concerned himself is empowered to convert the report of non-cognizable offence into the report of cognizable offence upon receiving sufficient material disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence without the order of the magistrate concerned.
(2) Whether for getting, the order to investigate the non-cognizable case, the first informant has any right to move an application, before the magistrate concerned under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. or it can only be moved by a police officer of a police station concerned.
6. To deal with the issue involved it necessary to discuss and consider the provisions of Section 154, 155 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 154 Cr.P.C. envisages as:
154. Information in cognizable cases-(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person given it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-section (i) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in Sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
Section 155 Cr.P.C. envisages as:
155, information as to non-cognizable case and investigation of such cases(1) when information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as; an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offence of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the order offences are non- cognizable.
Section 156 Cr.P.C. envisages as:
156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case -(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceedings of a police officer in any such case shall be at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate, (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.
7. In the light of the above mentioned provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Ideal with issue No. 1. According to the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. an officer in-charge of a police station, is under obligation to reduce every information relating to commission of the cognizable offence in writing, If any such information is given to the officer in charge of the police station, he is under obligation to register and investigate the same and according to the provisions of Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. the officer in-charge of the police station may without the order of a magistrate, investigate any cognizable case, in such situation I am of the view that if any information or material is given to an officer in charge of a police station disclosing the cognizable offence, an officer in charge of a police station himself is empowered to register the case and investigate the same. In case the ': report has already been registered as non cognizable report, thereafter, if any information or material is given by any person to the officer in charge disclosing the cognizable offence, he himself is empowered to register the case as cognizable and to investigate the same. There is no requirement of taking permission or order : for investigation from the magistrate concerned,
8. Now I deal with issue No. 2. According to the provision of Section 155 Cr.P.C. only officer in charge or any police officer of a police station concerned can move an application to obtain the order for investigation from the magistrate concerned of a non cognizable case and there is no legal bar for moving such application by the first informant, Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. also envisages that no police officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the 'order' of magistrate, here the word 'order' as mentioned above, it is relevant to deal with issue No. 2, in the wording of the provision of Section 155(2) the word 'without order' is used. Therefore, the order may be passed by the magistrate concerned on the application of a police officer concerned or on the application of the first informant also. According to the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. also the case is registered on the information given to the officer in-charge of a police station, relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. In default, the first informant may move an application under Section 156(3) for passing the 'order' for doing investigation, it provides a right to the first informant to move an application on this analogy the first informant is also a competent person to move an application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the above discussion the officer in charge of the police station Newarhia was under obligation to register the case as a cognizable offence and to investigate the same upon receiving the x-ray report showing fracture of 9tb rib of the left side chest which discloses cognizable offence and there was no requirement to obtain an order from the magistrate concerned. The officer in charge of P.S. Newarhia has committed a manifest error by not taking any action on receiving the x-ray report by not converting the NCR into cognizable offence and not doing the investigation. The learned A.C.J.M. I Jaunpur also committed the same error by rejecting the application on 17.11.2005. it appears that the impugned order has been passed in a routine manner without considering the provisions of law whereas in the impugned order itself it has been mentioned that the copy of the N.C.R, and medical examination report was perused even then no finding was recorded in respect of disclosure of a cognizable offence whereas according to the x-ray report 9th rib of left side chest of the revisionist was fractured, but by citing the decision of this Court in the case of Navin Chandra Pandey and Ors. v. State of U.P. which is not applicable in the case in hand and by illegally observing that power of investigation is to a police officer and it is not to the first informant.
10. The learned magistrate was empowered to direct the S.O. police concerned to investigate the matter but by not passing such order the learned magistrate committed a manifest error of law. The impugned order is illegal, it has not been passed in accordance with the provision of law, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.11.2005 is set aside and the officer in charge of P.S, Nawarhia district Jaunpur is directed to convert the NCR No. 78 of 2005 into a cognizable offence, to investigate the same and to proceed further in accordance with the law.
11. Accordingly this revision is allowed.