Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JASWANT SINGH, P.S. KAILASAM AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.**
Kamalapati Trivedi, Appellant
Versus
The State of W.B., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1972, D/- 13-12-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sukumar Ghosh, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. M. M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee, Advocates, for Respondent.
-Order of bail passed by a Magistrate after application of mind is in discharge of Judicial function and is a Judicial order i.e., an act of Court. (Para 32)
Per Kailasham, J.-Complaint disclosing offences u/s 182 and 211 I. P. O. by a private person in relation to a proceeding in any Court-Magistrate receiving report from a police officer that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds for proceeding-Magistrate accepting the report acts under Ch. XIV of the Code-There is no proceeding in or in relation to any court and complaint by a Court if not necessary. (Paras 18 & 22)
Kailasham, J.-Complaint before magistrate - Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing warrant of arrest against the accused-Accused surrendering before the magistrate and released on bail-The proceeding is not before a Court. (Para 20)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with references:
The distinction between judicial and administrative functions of a Magistrate is crucial in determining whether proceedings are considered to be "in or in relation to" a court. When a Magistrate acts in a judicial capacity, such as passing orders on bail or discharging an accused, these actions are regarded as acts of a court (!) (!) .
Proceedings that occur during investigation, such as remand or bail applications, are generally not considered to be proceedings before a court unless the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. These stages involve the Magistrate acting in a supervisory or administrative capacity rather than as a court (!) (!) .
Orders passed by a Magistrate during investigation, including those relating to release on bail or discharge, do not amount to proceedings in a court unless the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. The Magistrate’s role at this stage is primarily supervisory and not judicial (!) (!) .
The term "court" in the context of the relevant statutory provisions encompasses various types of courts, including Magistrates, when they are acting in a judicial capacity. However, it does not include purely administrative or executive functions performed by such authorities (!) (!) .
For an act to be considered as "in or in relation to" proceedings in a court, the proceedings must involve a judicial determination of rights, with parties having a right to be heard and to adduce evidence. Routine investigation or preliminary stages do not meet this criterion (!) (!) .
The act of a Magistrate applying his mind to a police report and passing an order of discharge or bail, when done in the course of judicial proceedings, is regarded as an act of a court. Conversely, when such actions are taken during investigation without the Magistrate having taken cognizance, they are not considered proceedings of a court (!) .
The legislative intent behind the statutory provisions is to restrict private parties from initiating criminal proceedings in certain cases, reserving such powers for authorized courts or authorities acting in a judicial capacity (!) (!) .
The question of whether proceedings during investigation or remand are "in or in relation to" a court depends on whether the Magistrate is acting in a judicial capacity at that stage. Orders made during investigation, without prior cognizance, do not constitute proceedings before a court (!) (!) .
The process of investigation, including the submission of police reports and orders related to bail or discharge, does not automatically amount to proceedings in a court unless the Magistrate has formally taken cognizance of the offence (!) (!) .
The overall interpretation emphasizes that only when a Magistrate acts in a judicial capacity, such as passing final orders after taking cognizance, do the proceedings qualify as "before a court" and fall within the scope of the relevant legal provisions (!) .
If you need further clarification or specific legal advice based on this document, please let me know.
Judgment
KAILASAM, J. (Minority view) :- This appeal is filed by special leave by Kamlapati Trivedi against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1006 of 1970 by which it refused to quash the proceedings which were taken cognizance of by the Magistrate, on a complaint given by one Satya Narayan Pathak.
2. Satya Narayan Pathak is the Secretary of Bharatiya Primary School in Howrah. The appellant before us, Kamlapati Trivedi, was a Head Teacher of the Bharatiya Primary School. On 18th April, 1970 Satya Narayan Pathak served a Notice on the appellant calling upon him to show cause why he should not be found guilty of negligence of duty. On receipt of the Notice, the appellant attempted to remove certain records from the school but he was prevented. On the same day, that is, on 18th April, 1970 the appellant complained in writing to the Officer In-charge of Bally Police Station, Howrah at 21.40 hours that Satya Narayan Pathak and others criminally trespassed, assaulted and abused him in filthy language and committed theft of money and valuable documents of the school. The Police treating the complaint of the appellant as First Information Report took cognizance of an offence under Sections 147, 448 and 379, I.P.C. and registered it. A warrant of arrest was issued against Satya Narayan Pathak and others. Satya Narayan Pathak attended the Court on 21-5-1970 and 21-7-1970 the dates fixed for submission of the Police report. The Police Officer who investigated the case on finding no evidence against Satya Narayan Pathak and others names as accused, submitted a final report and the Magistrate agreeing with the report discharged all the accused.
3. As Satya Narayan Pathak felt that the appellant instituted criminal proceedings with intent to cause injury to him and others, for offences under Sections 147, 448 and 379 knowing that there was no just or lawful ground and had caused pecuniary loss and agony to 780 him, he preferred a complaint against the appellant for offences under Ss. 211 and 182 of the I.P.C. on 20th October, 1970. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and summoned the appellant under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, fixing 10th December, 1970 for appearance of the appellant. On 16th November, 1970 the appellant appeared in court and was released on bail. The appellant moved the High Court of Calcutta for quashing the proceeding by the Magistrate on the ground that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was bad and without jurisdiction for noncompliance of the provisions of Sec. 195 (1) (b) of Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge refused to quash the proceedings and discharge the accused, by judgment dated 18th Aug., 1971.Against the order of the single judge of the High court, the present appeal to this Court has been filed.
4. The main ground of attack in this appeal is that the High Court failed to appreciate the meaning of the words "in relation to any proceedings in any court" in Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that when a final report was submitted by the Police under S. 173 of Criminal Procedure Code and the Magistrate passed an order it would be a judicial order and the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) would be attracted.
5. The question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts of the case the bar against taking cognizance in S. 195 (1) (b) is attracted. Sec. 195 (1) (b) so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case may be extracted:
"195 (1) No court shall take cognizance
(a)......
(b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely, Ss. 193, 194, 196, 195, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate;or
(c) ........
(2) In Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
