R.P.Shukla,J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order of the Special Judge (E. C. Act), Dehradun, dated 30-9-1986, refusing to cancel the cognizance of Criminal Case No. 10) of 1985 : State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prithwi Chandra and another u/Sec.3\7 of the E. C. Act. The revision has been pressed on two grounds : firstly that the Magistrate ought to have refused to take cognizance of the offence under section 11 of the E. C. Act which reads that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the fact constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THIS section has been amended by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the amendment runs :- For the words " by a person who is a public servant as defined in section 21 of the IPC ", the words "by order or under the authority from the District Magistrate or such other officer as may be empowered by the State Government by special or general order in this behalf " shall be substituted (U. P. Act No. 9 of 1974 dated 27-4-1974). In the instant case a charge-sheet has been submitted after investigation. Under section 173 (2) after completion of the investigation a report on a prescribed form has to be sent to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance. The objection of the applicant is that column giving details of the offence is not filled up by the Investigating Officer in the same form and, therefore, the Magistrate ought to have refused to take cognizance of the offence. Under sub-section (5) of section 173, CrPC when such a report is in respect of a case to which section 170 CrPC applied, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate alongwith the report all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during the investigation and the statement recorded under section 161, CrPC of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. Sub-section (5) of section 173, CrPC has been complied with and its compliance has not been denied by the applicant. The Magistrate is expected to take cognizance of the: offence after going through all these relevant documents and not only after looking into the particular column of this report. The fact that particular column of the form is not filled in is a mere irregularity causing no prejudice to the applicant. The argument, therefore, is rejected. Secondly, it has been argued that the (sanction of the District Magistrate ought to have preceded the charge-sheet.
(3.) I am of the opinion that unless the District Magistrate could know all the facts about the offence by the investigating; authority how he could sanction the prosecution of the offence. The sanction in the absence of relevant papers may amount non-application of mind. Therefore, I do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that the sanction of the District Magistrate ought to have preceded the charge-sheet. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.;