SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Kar) 248

Karnataka High Court
DAVUD BHAI HASAN ALLI KOLHAPURWALA - Appellant
Versus
ABHAS BHAI ABDUL KARIM BHURISHET - Respondent
Decided On : 08-13-71
Cr.R.P. : 98 of 1971

Advocates:
J.S.GUNJAL, K.A.Swami, K.H.N.Kuranga, M.Nagappa

The Magistrate must adhere to the mandatory provisions of S. 200 Crpc and examine the complainant and witnesses before issuing process.

Headnote:

Cognizance - Criminal Procedure Code - S. 200, S. 406 IPC

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of not returning pledged jewels, leading to a complaint under S. 406 IPC. The Magistrate, without taking cognizance of the complaint, sent it for investigation. After a 'b' report, the Magistrate directed to register a case against the petitioner and examined the complainant and witnesses, ultimately discharging the accused. The Sessions judge set aside the order and directed further enquiry.

Finding of the Court:

The Magistrate's failure to follow the mandatory provisions of S. 200 Crpc rendered subsequent proceedings illegal.

Issues: Whether the Magistrate could issue summons without taking cognizance and examining the complainant and witnesses. Whether the Magistrate's actions were in compliance with S. 200 Crpc.

Ratio Decidendi: The Magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses before issuing process, as mandated by S. 200 Crpc. Failure to do so renders subsequent proceedings illegal.

Final Decision: The revision petition fails and is dismissed.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Sessions judge, Bijapur setting aside the order of the JMFC. II Court, Bijapur in crl. Case No. 1763/69 on his file and directing him to hold further enquiry into the case in accordance with law.

( 2 ) THE facts that have given rise to this revision petition lie in a very narrow compass. One Abbas Bhai Abdul Karim Bhorishet (1st respondent herein) filed a complaint against Dawudh Bhai Hasanalli kolhapurawala (petitioner herein) alleging that in the year 1962 the petitioner was entrusted with certain jewels and was asked to pledge them for him for Rs. 1100 in Mahalakshmi Bank at Bijapur as he wanted the money immediately for starting a hotel. Accordingly, the petitioner pledged the jewels in the Bank for 1100 and paid the same to the complainant. Later, it appears, the complainant paid back this sum on various occasions asking the accused to redeem the pledged articles and deliver the same to him the accused appears to have paid the loan amount and got back the jewels from the Bank on 2-1-1967, but he did not hand over the same to the complainant. In spite of repeated requests made by the complainant to return the jewels, the petitioner did not return them to him. In this behalf there was a panchayati and in that panchayati the petitioner promised to return the jewels but he failed to do so. But on the other hand, he pledged the jewels in another Bank. On these facts, it was alleged by the complainant that the accused had committed an offence punishable under S. 406 of indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) THE Magistrate, without taking cognizance of the complaint, sent the same under S. 153 (3) Crpc. to the Circle Inspector of Police, Bijapur, for investigation and report. The Circle Inspector of Police entrusted the work to the Sub Inspector of Police of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, who registered a case in crime No. 87/68. After investigation into the complaint, he submitted a 'b' report on 1-9-1968 stating that the complainant had given a false complaint due to the ill-will existing between him and the petitioner.

( 4 ) SOME time after the report was submitted, the Magistrate heard the Counsel for the complainant and the Assistant Public Prosecutor about the 'b' report. It appears that the Assistant Public Prosecutor could not support the 'b' report submitted by the Police, whereupon the Magistrate directed to register a case against the petitioner under S. 406 IPC. and also directed the complainant to file a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf. The complainant filed a list of witnesses and requested the court to issue summons to the petitioner. The Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner and in obedience thereto, the petitioner appeared in court. Thereafter, the Magistrate held an enquiry by examining the complainant and 8 witnesses on his behalf and came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to make out a case against the petitioner and in that view, he discharged the petitioner. Aggrieved by this decision, the complainant preferred a revision petition to the Court of the Sessions judge at Bijapur, which as already stated above, set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed him to hold further enquiry according to law.

( 5 ) THE question that arises in this case is whether the learned Magistrate, without following the provisions of S. 200 Crpc. could have issued summons to the accused to appear before him to answer a charge under s. 406 IPC. and whether he could have proceeded further to examine the witnesses on the complaint being presented before the Magistrate without taking cognizance of the offence and send complaint to the Public under S. 156 (3) Crpc. for investigation and report. The Magistrate was well within his right to do so, for many re sons. When there is an investigating agency made for that purpose ho thought that the Police would do the thing and by doing so, he would be saving his own time. On receipt of the 'b' report,








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top