N.A. Britto, J.–This is petition is directed against the order dated 6.12.2008 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji Goa, upholding the order dated 13.5.2008 of the learned Magistrate (J.M.F.C.), Ponda, refusing to issue process against the respondents-accused under Sections 166, 340, 348, 350 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. There is no dispute that the respondent No.2 is a Police Sub-Inspector attached to Miraj Police Station in the State of Maharashtra, who came down to Goa in connection with investigation of Crime No. 197/2005 of that Police Station registered at the instance of one Advocate Shaikh under Section 153(a), 153(b) and 295(a) Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.3 is a Head Constable and respondent No. 4 is a Constable who had accompanied the said Police Sub-Inspector.

3. In connection with the said investigation the respondent No. 2/PSI accompanied by the officers of Ponda Police Station went to Sanatan Ashram situated at Ramnathi, Ponda Goa, on 6.11.2005 and the complainant who brought to the Ponda Police Station to record his statement in connection with the said crime and subsequently was taken to Miraj City Police Station and after recording his statement the petitioner/complainant was allowed to go.

4. On the same day, the wife of complainant filed a police complaint at Ponda Police Station. Thereafter, the complainant himself filed a police complaint on 29.11.2005 and as no action was taken by the police, he filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate on 31.1.2006.

5. The learned Magistrate did not examine the complainant as required under law but allowed the said examination to be conducted by the Advocate of the complainant. By now there are several decisions of this Court particularly the case of Lance Irwin Lobo 2007 (1) Bom CR (Cri.) 680, to say that the duty to examine the complainant on oath under Section 200, Cr PC is that of the Magistrate and that cannot be abdicated in favour of the advocate of the complainant. The statement on oath of the complainant therefore, is almost a verbatim reproduction of the complaint. It was stated by this Court in the above case that :–

"The recording of the statement on oath of the complainant under Section 200, Cr PC, is not an empty formality. Commonly it is nicknamed as verification. To verify means to establish the truth. In other words, verification is done in order to ascertain as to what is pleaded by the complainant is true or not. It is with a view to separate chaff from the grain as many a times complaints do contain unfounded allegations and it is the duty of the Court to ensure that what is stated in the complaint is also stated by the complainant on oath and it is only then that based on such statement that process can be issued. The corollary of this would be that unless offences are disclosed from the statement on oath, no process can be issued only based on averments in the complaint. The complainant is bound to make a statement on oath as to how the offence was committed and how the accused persons are responsible therefor."

6. Be that as it may, the complainant was examined, and his wife as his witness, the learned Magistrate refused to issue the process against the accused which order has now been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji.

7. The case of the complainant, as can be seen from the complaint is that on 6.11.2005 the complainant along with his wife Vrunda were performing religious services in the Sanatan Ashram at Ramnathi Ponda Goa, when at about 12.00 noon a squad of police officers headed by accused No. 1 along with police officers of Ponda Police Station came in the said Ashram and the accused No. 1/PSI inquired about Mr. Hajare, Editor of the daily 'Sanatan Prabhat' and the complainant told the accused No. 1 that Mr. Hajare has left for Miraj in connection with the offence registered against the said daily 'Sanatan Prabhat' in Miraj Police Station. Whereupon, the accused No. 1/PSI told