In Re: Narella Satyanarayanamurthi

Horwill, J.—A report or charge sheet was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Chirala in The Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ongole in

which several offences punishable u/s 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act were disclosed. The warrant procedure was adopted, but a

charge was framed with regard to an offence not mentioned in the charge sheet. Upon that offence being proved to the satisfaction of the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, the accused was convicted. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. The question is whether in view of

the second clause of Section 7 (1) of the Act, the trial Court had jurisdiction to convict the accused.

Section 7 (1) (2) says that,

No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except upon a report in writing of facts which constitute such offence...

It would follow that before a person can be tried for any offence punishable under that sub-section, there must be a report in writing of facts which

constitute such offence. This means that unless a report is filed disclosing facts which constitute a particular offence, the Court is not entitled to

frame a charge and try an accused for that offence. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that since a number of offences punishable

under the section were disclosed by the report, the Magistrate had cognizance under that section and having cognizance, could try the accused in

any charge disclosed by the evidence, although it might not have been constituted from the facts set out in the report. I find it difficult to accept that

argument. Many offences punishable u/s 7 may be committed; but no Magistrate can take cognizance of any one of those offences unless that

particular offence is constituted by the facts set out in the Sub-Inspector''s report. It seems to me to follow that as this particular offence of

compelling shop-keepers to close their shops was not indicated in the charge sheet, the Court was not at liberty to try the accused for that

particular offence. The acceptance of the learned Public Prosecutor''s argument would mean that a report disclosing an offence of which an

accused person may be completely innocent could be used as a basis for his conviction of an offence regarding which there had been no report at

all--which would lead to the evasion of the safeguard that the Legislature thought necessary to impose that a person should not be tried for an

offence unless there was a report by a police officer of a certain rank setting out the facts which constitute that particular offence.

The petition is allowed and the conviction of the accused set aside. His bail bond will be cancelled.