Non-IPC Offence Punishable Up to Three Years Is Cognizable and Non-Bailable: Rajasthan High Court Overrules Pintu Dey

The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR lodged for an offence under Section 91(6) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, contending that the offence was non-cognizable and the police could not register it. They relied on Pintu Dey v. State of Rajasthan (para 2), where a Single Bench held offences under Sections 63 and 68A of the Copyright Act, punishable up to three years, non-cognizable (para 13). The Single Judge hearing the petition disagreed and referred the question to a Larger Bench (para 3). Section 91(6)(a) prescribes simple imprisonment of not less than one month which may extend to three years (para 7); the 1956 Act is silent on cognizability (para 10).

Part II of the First Schedule classifies offences under other laws into three categories by the range of sentence imposable (paras 9, 11). An offence punishable up to three years falls outside the first and third categories; if the second also excluded it, it would fall in none (paras 12, 18), whereas the legislature meant every such offence to fall in one category or another (para 19). Applying the contextual reading explained in Balram Kumawat (para 20), it compared Part I, where IPC offences punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, such as those under Sections 418, 419 and 456, are described as punishable ‘for three years’ (para 21). Read so, the second category includes offences punishable up to three years; the maximum punishment, not the minimum, is relevant (para 21). Amarnath Vyas, holding that some offences fall between the categories, was held incorrect (para 22). Rajiv Choudhary and Rakesh Kumar Paul, which construed ‘not less than ten years’ in Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for default bail, arose in a different context and were not attracted (paras 15, 17, 23).