SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Printed For: Harshil Shriwas, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 175 : 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1305 :
2003 SCC OnLine SC 518

(BEFORE N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.)

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI AND OTHERS . . Appellants;

Versus
TAPAN KUMAR SINGH . . Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 1995† , decided on April 10, 2003
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 154 — FIR — General Diary entry — Treatment of,
as FIR — Held, GD entry may be treated as FIR in an appropriate case, where it discloses
the commission of a cognizable offence

Page: 176

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 154 — FIR — Contents — It is not necessary that
the FIR must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported — What is
required is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence
and must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of such an offence
— If it is so, the police officer is bound to record the information and conduct an
investigation — Mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the FIR, held, not essential
— Where the facts stated in the General Diary entry recorded on the basis of a telephonic
information were (i) that the respondent was a corrupt official and was in the habit of
accepting illegal gratifications, (ii) that he had demanded and accepted cash to the tune of
rupees one lakh approximately, and (iii) that he would be carrying with him the said amount
while going to a particular place by a particular mode on a particular date, held, a cognizable
offence under S. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was clearly made out —
Hence, the SP, CBI rightly proceeded to intercept the respondent and investigate the case
— Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 13
C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 156 — Power of police officer to investigate a
cognizable case — For taking up investigation in a cognizable case, it is enough if the police
officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable
offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been
committed — If the police officer has reasons to suspect so, he has no option but to record
the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other
competent officer to conduct the investigation — There is no need for the police officer to be
satisfied about the truthfulness of the information at this stage — Matters which are alien to
the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, stated — Where the General Diary entry recorded on the basis of a
telephonic information disclosed commission of a cognizable offence under S. 13 of the PC
Act, 1988, held the SP, CBI rightly proceeded to intercept the accused and investigate the
case
D. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 401 — Revisional jurisdiction — On facts, High
Court erred in quashing the GD entry, the investigation undertaken on the basis thereof and
the FIR recorded subsequent to the said GD entry
E. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 154 — FIR — Generally — Dispute as to which of
the two informations recorded in a case is FIR — Held, is a matter which the court trying the
accused has jurisdiction to decide
F. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 211 and 154 — Framing of charges — Even if a
wrong section is mentioned in the FIR, that does not prevent the court from framing
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Printed For: Harshil Shriwas, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate charges — Thus, mentioning of a particular section in the FIR is not by itself
conclusive
G. Criminal Trial — Search and seizure — Challenge to — Proper stage for — Where the
Supreme Court set aside the order of High Court, which quashed the investigation, and
directed the investigation to proceed, held on facts, it was not proper to consider the legality
of search and seizure at this

Page: 177

stage — The accused if put up for trial, held, could challenge the same before the trial court —
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 165

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court

Held :
The parties did not dispute the legal position that a GD entry may be treated as a first information
report in an appropriate case, where it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
(Para 16)
The information recorded in the GD entry does make a categoric assertion that the respondent
has accepted a sum of rupees one lakh by way of illegal gratification, and that he was carrying the
said amount with him while going to Nagpur by Gitanjali Express on 17-10-1990. If these assertions
are accepted on their face value, clearly an offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out. The said offence is a cognizable offence.
(Para 18)
A first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating
to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence
though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the
occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to
disclose in great detail all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the
information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so
lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence.
(Para 20)
The law does not require the mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the FIR. It is only
after a complete investigation that it may be possible to say whether any offence is made out on the
basis of evidence collected by the investigating agency.
(Para 22)
The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the
investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in
accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect
the commission of an offence, which the police officer concerned is empowered under Section 156 of
the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to
investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the
investigation. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given
suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied
that a cognizable offence has been committed. Further, at this stage it is also not necessary for him
to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation
that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. The question as to
whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence,
whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are
all matters which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the information does not furnish all the details, the police
officer concerned must find out those details in the course of investigation and collect all the
necessary evidence.
(Para 20)
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Printed For: Harshil Shriwas, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 178

In the instant case, the information received by the Superintendent of Police, CBI clearly spells out
the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
allegation certainly gives rise to a suspicion that a cognizable offence may have been committed by
the respondent, which the Superintendent of Police, CBI was empowered to investigate. Therefore if
the Superintendent of Police, CBI proceeded to intercept the respondent and investigate the case, he
did only that which he was in law obliged to do. His taking up the investigation, therefore, cannot be
faulted.
(Para 21)
It is premature at this stage to consider whether search and seizure were done in accordance
with law as that is a question which has to be considered by the court, if the accused is ultimately put
up for trial and he challenges the search and seizure made. Similarly, the question as to whether the
GD entry, or the FIR formally recorded on 20-10-1990, is the FIR in the case, is a matter which may
be similarly agitated before the court. Where two informations are recorded and it is contended
before the court that the one projected by the prosecution as the FIR is not really the FIR but some
other information recorded earlier is the FIR, that is a matter which the court trying the accused has
jurisdiction to decide. Further, the mentioning of a particular section in the FIR is not by itself
conclusive as it is for the court to frame charges having regard to the material on record. Even if a
wrong section is mentioned in the FIR, that does not prevent the court from framing appropriate
charges.
(Para 23)
The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the appellants are directed to proceed
with the investigation in accordance with law and thereafter to take all steps as are required to be
taken in law.
(Para 24)
W-M/ANTZ/28042/CR
Advocates who appeared in this case:
P.P. Malhotra, Senior Advocate (Tufail A. Khan and P. Parameswaran, Advocates,
with him) for the Appellants;
S.B. Sanyal, Senior Advocate (N.R. Choudhary, Som Nath Mukherjee, J.P. Pandey
and Devashish Bharua, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.P. SINGH, J.— The Union of India, Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of
Investigation and other officers of the said Bureau have come up in appeal against the
judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dated 28-2-1992 in
Criminal Revision No. 1913 of 1990 whereby the High Court while allowing the revision
petition quashed the investigation on the basis of GD Entry No. 681 as also the first
information report recorded on 20-10-1990. It further quashed RC Case No. 51 of
1990 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. Consequently it also quashed the search and seizure effected on 18-10-1990 and
directed that the money and articles seized be returned to the person from whom they
were seized.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 17-10-1990 the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (SPE)
(ACB), Calcutta received information from reliable source on telephone that the
respondent, who was then the Director (Personnel), Eastern Coalfields Limited, was a
corrupt officer in the habit of

Page: 179
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Printed For: Harshil Shriwas, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
demanding and accepting illegal gratification, had demanded and accepted a sum of
rupees one lakh which he was carrying with him while going to Nagpur by Gitanjali
Express on 17-10-1990. Since the parties have advanced arguments before us on the
question whether the said report could be treated to be an information within the
meaning of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is convenient to
reproduce General Diary Entry No. 681 of 17-10-1990 in extenso which is as follows:

“GD Entry No. 681 of 17-10-1990 of CBI

SPE, ACB, Calcutta
1130 hours: Information received from a reliable source indicates that Shri
Tapan Kumar Singh, Director (Personnel), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctorai,
West Bengal is an out-and-out corrupt official and is in the habit of demanding and
accepting illegal gratifications. Information further revealed that he demanded and
accepted huge cash to the tune of Rs 1 lakh approximately which he would be
carrying with him while going to Nagpur by Gitanjali Express on 17-10-1990. He
would be boarding the train at Tata. The matter was discussed with the DIG, CBI,
Calcutta and it was decided to verify the information by intercepting him en route
and to take other follow-up actions, if necessary.
Since there is no time for further verification into the matter, I am leaving for
Nagpur by Gitanjali Express today (17-10-1990) scheduled to start from Howrah at
1310 hrs with a team of CBI officers comprising of Inspector S.R. Majumdar,
Inspector R.K. Sarkar, Inspector S.N. Bhattacharjee and Inspector S.K. Dasgupta,
this is as per provision of Section 157 CrPC.
sd/-
T.K. Sangyal
SP, CBI, SPE, ACB, Calcutta.”
3. As would be apparent from the said GD entry, the Superintendent of Police, CBI
discussed the matter with DIG, CBI, Calcutta but since there was no time for further
verification into the matter, the Superintendent of Police, CBI decided to leave for
Nagpur by Gitanjali Express with a view to intercept the respondent and take further
necessary action. In the said GD entry it is stated that the Superintendent of Police,
CBI left with a team of CBI officers and that the action was taken as per the provisions
of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. It is not in dispute that on 18-10-1990 at 1130 hours the police party
intercepted the respondent at Nagpur Railway Station and conducted his personal
search as well as the search of his belongings as also the search of his residential flat
at Nagpur. A huge amount of money was recovered pursuant to such search and the
said amount along with other articles was seized. After returning to Calcutta on 20-10-
1990 the Superintendent of Police, CBI lodged a first information report alleging
commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of
the Prevention

Page: 180

of Corruption Act, 1988. On the basis of the said report, RC Case No. 51 of 1990
(Calcutta) was registered.

5. The respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court of Calcutta
challenging the proceeding and sought quashing of the investigation as well as
General Diary Entry No. 681 of 17-10-1990 and the first information report lodged by
the Superintendent of Police, CBI. He also prayed for return of the money and other
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Printed For: Harshil Shriwas, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
articles -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
seized from him by the Superintendent of Police, CBI on 18-10-1990.
6. Before the High Court several submissions were urged on behalf of the
respondent seeking quashing of the investigation as well as the GD entry and the first
information report.
7. It was firstly submitted that the general diary entry did not disclose the
commission of any cognizable offence and hence the Superintendent of Police, CBI had
no authority to investigate the allegations made therein under Section 157 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, since he could exercise the power to investigate only if the
information given to the police related to the commission of a cognizable offence.
Secondly, it was urged that since the investigation itself was illegal, the search and
seizure made pursuant thereto under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
were also illegal. Thirdly, it was submitted that failure of the Superintendent of Police,
CBI to record in writing the ground for his belief that the things necessary for the
purpose of investigation might be found in the place of search, amounted to breach of
a mandatory condition and, therefore, vitiated the search. The search was thus illegal
and without jurisdiction and, therefore, any recovery made or articles seized pursuant
thereto should be returned to the person from whom they were recovered. Lastly, it
was submitted that the information received prior to investigation must be
distinguished from the information collected during investigation. The latter cannot
take the place of first information report. After conducting partial investigation the
police officer cannot go back and record a first information report under Section 154 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such first information report is illegal and no action
can be taken on the basis of such an illegal first information report.
8. On behalf of the appellants it was contended before the High Court that the GD
entry was not the first information report and only the report made on 20-10-1990
was the first information report. The action taken by the Superintendent of Police, CBI
after recording the GD entry and before lodging the formal first information report was
only in the nature of a preliminary inquiry before investigation. Secondly, the mere
mention of a wrong section in the GD entry did not vitiate the exercise of powers if
such exercise can be traced to a legitimate source. Lastly, it was submitted that even
in a preliminary inquiry before initiation of investigation, search and seizure was
permissible.
9. The High Court after considering the submissions urged on behalf of the parties
came to the conclusion that the general diary entry did not

Page: 181

disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and, therefore, investigation pursuant

to such a general diary entry was illegal. The first information report which was lodged
after investigation was conducted in part was also illegal and consequently no case
could be initiated on the basis of such an illegal first information report. It further held
that this was not a case in which a preliminary inquiry before investigation was
justified. In any event, the Superintendent of Police, CBI did not in fact make any
preliminary enquiry and proceeded to take steps for investigation as was apparent
from the GD entry wherein he stated that he was taking action under Section 157 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The submission that a wrong section was mentioned
in the GD entry by him was rejected on the grounds firstly, that a senior officer like
the Superintendent of Police, CBI was not expected to make such a mistake and
secondly, that the State was unable to mention the correct section which he should
have mentioned therein. Moreover, there was no provision in the Code of Criminal
Procedure authorizing a police officer to make a preliminary enquiry before
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Printed For: Harshil Shriwas, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
investigation. The steps taken by the Superintendent of Police, CBI were the steps
which an investigating officer is authorized to take while investigating a case on the
basis of a report disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, such as apprehension
of the accused, collection of evidence, search and seizure etc. Though it was not
disputed that in law, in an appropriate case, a GD entry may be treated as a first
information report and can provide the basis for investigation, in the instant case,
however, the Superintendent of Police, CBI lodged a first information report two days
later. The steps taken by him after recording the GD entry and before lodging the first
information report on 20-10-1990 were the steps in investigation and not the steps in
a preliminary enquiry prior to initiation of regular investigation.

10. The High Court also held that the alleged first information report lodged on 20-
10-1990 was not a first information report in law, as it was recorded after the
investigation had proceeded to some extent, and was therefore covered by Sections
161 and 162 of the Code.
11. On the question whether the GD entry itself disclosed the commission of a
cognizable offence, the Court observed:
“Now let me look into the GD entry on the basis of which the instant
investigation has been started. On a careful scrutiny of the said GD entry I am of
the opinion that the said GD entry contains some vague allegations and does not
disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It has been stated that the
present petitioner was an out-and-out corrupt official and was in the habit of
demanding and accepting illegal gratifications; such statement certainly does not
disclose the commission of any offence. It has been further stated that the
petitioner demanded and accepted huge cash to the tune of Rs 1,00,000. The
statement is equally vague; it has not been stated from whom such huge cash was
demanded and accepted. Nor has it been stated that such demand or acceptance
was made as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for
showing or forbearing to show in exercise of his

Page: 182

official function, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to

render any service or disservice to any person. The information as recorded in GD
Entry No. 681 is extremely (sic) cognizable offence. On such information as recorded
in the said GD entry it cannot be said that the police officer reasonably had reason to
suspect the commission of any cognizable offence. As the information as recorded in
GD Entry No. 681 on the basis of which the instant investigation has been started does
not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and as the police officer cannot,
reasonably have any reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence on such
held information, this Court in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court
holds that the investigation on the basis of the said GD entry is unlawful and without
jurisdiction and should, therefore, be quashed.”

12. Lastly, the High Court held that the search and seizure conducted by the
Superintendent of Police, CBI were not in accordance with law as a mandatory
requirement of Section 165 of the Code was not fulfilled inasmuch as the officer
making the investigation failed to record in writing the grounds for his belief that
anything necessary for the purpose of an investigation into any offence which he was
authorized to investigate may be found in any place and that such thing could not, in
his opinion, be otherwise obtained without undue delay. The search and seizure was,
therefore, illegal and the things recovered in pursuance of such illegal search must be
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Printed For: Harshil Shriwas, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
returned to the person from whom they were seized.
13. On these findings, the High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and
quashed the GD entry, the first information report as well as the investigation, and
directed return of the money and articles seized.
14. The crucial finding recorded by the High Court is that the facts stated in the GD
entry did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and consequently the
police had no power or jurisdiction to investigate the allegations made therein. Thus,
the investigation undertaken, and the search and seizures made were illegal and
without jurisdiction and deserved to be quashed.
15. It is the correctness of this finding which is assailed before us by the
appellants. They contend that the information recorded in the GD entry does disclose
the commission of a cognizable offence. They submitted that even if their contention,
that after recording the GD entry only a preliminary enquiry was made, is not
accepted, they are still entitled to sustain the legality of the investigation on the basis
that the GD entry may be treated as a first information report, since it disclosed the
commission of a cognizable offence.
16. The parties before us did not dispute the legal position that a GD entry may be
treated as a first information report in an appropriate case, where it discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence. If the contention of the appellants is upheld, the
order of the High Court must be set aside because if there was in law a first
information report disclosing the

Page: 183

commission of a cognizable offence, the police had the power and jurisdiction to
investigate, and in the process of investigation to conduct search and seizure. It is,
therefore, not necessary for us to consider the authorities cited at the Bar on the
question of validity of the preliminary enquiry and the validity of the search and
seizure.

17. We have earlier in this judgment reported the GD entry dated 17-10-1990 in
extenso. The facts stated therein are that the respondent was a corrupt official and
was in the habit of accepting illegal gratifications; that he had demanded and
accepted cash to the tune of rupees one lakh approximately, and that he would be
carrying with him the said amount while going to Nagpur by Gitanjali Express on 17-
10-1990.
18. The information so recorded does make a categoric assertion that the
respondent has accepted a sum of rupees one lakh by way of illegal gratification, and
that he was carrying the said amount with him while going to Nagpur by Gitanjali
Express on that day. If these assertions are accepted on their face value, clearly an
offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is made out. It cannot be disputed that such offence of criminal misconduct is a
cognizable offence having regard to the second item of the last part of Schedule I of
the Code of Criminal Procedure under the head “II — Classification of Offences Against
Other Laws”.
19. The High Court fell into an error in thinking that the information received by the
police could not be treated as a first information report since the allegation was vague
inasmuch as it was not stated from whom the sum of rupees one lakh was demanded
and accepted. Nor was it stated that such demand or acceptance was made as motive
or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, or for showing or forbearing to
show in exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person or for
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Printed For: Harshil Shriwas, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rendering, attempting to render any service or disservice to any person. Thus there
was no basis for a police officer to suspect the commission of an offence which he was
empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate.
20. It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which
must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may
lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name
of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A
first informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in
great detail all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the
information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the
information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the
commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on
the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence,
and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been
committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a
cognizable offence may

Page: 184

have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an

investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the
truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may
be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if
the information does not furnish all the details he must find out those details in the
course of investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given
disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative
machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action
in accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a
reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the police officer concerned is
empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option
but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or
depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to
whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of
occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to
support the allegations are all matters which are alien to the consideration of the
question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if
the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the investigating
officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if
he can.

21. In the instant case the information received by the Superintendent of Police,
CBI clearly spells out the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, inasmuch as there is a clear allegation that the
respondent has demanded and accepted a sum of rupees one lakh by way of illegal
gratification. The allegation is not as vague and bald as the High Court makes it out to
be. There is a further assertion that the respondent is carrying with him the said sum
of rupees one lakh and is to board the Gitanjali Express going to Nagpur. The
allegation certainly gives rise to a suspicion that a cognizable offence may have been
committed by the respondent, which the Superintendent of Police, CBI was
empowered to investigate. Therefore if the Superintendent of Police, CBI proceeded to
intercept the respondent and investigate the case, he did only that which he was in
law obliged to do. His taking up the investigation, therefore, cannot be faulted.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Printed For: Harshil Shriwas, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
22. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The High Court has also quashed the GD entry and the investigation on the
ground that the information did not disclose all the ingredients of the offence, as if the
informant is obliged to reproduce the language of the section, which defines “criminal
misconduct” in the Prevention of Corruption Act. In our view the law does not require
the mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the first information report. It is
only after a complete investigation that it may be possible to say whether any offence
is made out on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating agency.

Page: 185

23. The High Court also held that before conducting the search and seizure the
mandatory requirement of Section 165 was not fulfilled inasmuch as the investigating
officer did not record in writing the grounds for his belief as required by the said
section. It is premature at this stage to consider whether search and seizure was done
in accordance with law as that is a question which has to be considered by the court, if
the accused is ultimately put up for trial and he challenges the search and seizure
made. Similarly, the question as to whether the GD entry, or the FIR formally recorded
on 20-10-1990, is the FIR in the case, is a matter which may be similarly agitated
before the court. Where two informations are recorded and it is contended before the
court that the one projected by the prosecution as the FIR is not really the FIR but
some other information recorded earlier is the FIR, that is a matter which the court
trying the accused has jurisdiction to decide. Similarly, the mentioning of a particular
section in the FIR is not by itself conclusive as it is for the court to frame charges
having regard to the material on record. Even if a wrong section is mentioned in the
FIR, that does not prevent the court from framing appropriate charges.
24. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court erred in
exercising its revisional jurisdiction to quash the GD entry, the FIR and the
investigation undertaken by the Superintendent of Police, CBI in the facts and
circumstances of this case. The High Court also erred in granting relief to the
respondent by directing the return of the seized amount and other articles. This
appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment
and order of the High Court is set aside and the appellants are directed to proceed
with the investigation in accordance with law and thereafter to take all steps as are
required to be taken in law.
25. Since we have directed the investigation to continue, the investigating agency
should complete the investigation and thereafter take such action as may be justified
in law. Nothing said in this judgment should be construed as expression of opinion on
the merit of the case. It is for the investigating agency to collect all necessary
evidence and take such steps as may be justified, having regard to the evidence
collected by it. We should not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report on the basis of which
the investigation was undertaken. Observations, if any, have been made only for the
purpose of deciding the question as to whether the investigating agency was justified
in taking up the investigation pursuant to GD Entry No. 681 recorded on 17-10-1990.
Similarly, any observation made by the High Court while disposing of the revision
should not prejudice the case of the parties.
———
† From the Judgment and Order dated 28-2-1992 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. R. No. 1913 of 1990
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Printed For: Harshil Shriwas, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
notification -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.