S. 154 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as the first information report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048.
Cognizable Offence Means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant, Section 2(c), Criminal Procedure Code,1973. The offence complained of is punishable with three years’ imprisonment and as such it falls within the Second Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code, and consequently the same is a cognizable offence as defined in Section 4(1)(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code, A.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 340. Judicial, knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence.
Non-cognizable Offence means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant, [Section 2(l), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 . Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (India) — S. 2(l) — An offence for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant, Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1249.
Corroboration:- Evidence in support of principal evidence. The word ‘corroboration’ means not mere evidence tending to confirm other evidence. In Director of Public Prosecutions v. Hester, 1973 AC 296: (1972) 3 WLR 910: (1972) 3 All ER 1056 (HL) Lord Morris said: (All ER p. 1065f)
Contradiction:—The word “contradiction” is of a wide connotation which takes within its ambit all material omissions and under the circumstances of the case a court can decide whether there is one such omission as to amount to contradiction, State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani, (2001) 9 SCC 1.
Omission:— It has an activist facet like commission, more so when there is a duty not to omit. Where a course of conduct is enjoined by a law, the whole process pursuant to that obligation is an act done or purporting to be done under that Act although the components of that comprehensive act may consist of commissions and omissions, Trustees of Port of Bombay v. Premier Automobiles Ltd., (1974) 4 SCC 710.