PATNA HIGH COURT
Narayan, J.
Ramkisto Sahu
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 223 of ;
Criminal Revision No. 575 of 1951 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 04, 1951
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 202 - ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 202 SHOULD NOT BE CONVERTED INTO A FULL-DRESS TRIAL - SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE CONDUCTING ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 202 SHOULD NOT MAKE DETAILED FINDINGS ON TRUTH OR OTHERWISE OF ALLEGATIONS MADE BY COMPLAINANT - SUCH ENQUIRY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO DETERMINING WHETHER A PRIMA FACIE CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a first information report alleging that the Inspector of Amins, a Forest Guard, and certain constables of the Armed Force had assaulted him and his brother and extorted money from them. The police submitted a final report recommending the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Subdivisional Magistrate conducted a judicial enquiry and agreed with the police report. The petitioner filed a protest petition, which was rejected by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate had erred in conducting the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as if it was a full-dress trial. The Court observed that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate should have limited his enquiry to determining whether a prima facie case had been made out by the complainant.
Issues: Whether the learned Subdivisional Magistrate was justified in conducting the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as if it was a full-dress trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be converted into a full-dress trial. The Court observed that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate should have limited his enquiry to determining whether a prima facie case had been made out by the complainant. The Court further observed that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate had erred in making detailed findings on the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the complainant.
Final Decision: The Court allowed both the applications and directed that a further enquiry into the complaint be made either by the Deputy Commissioner or by any other Magistrate Subordinate to him and that the case under Sec.211 of the Indian. Penal Code be transferred from the file of the learned Subdivisional Magistrate to the file of any other Magistrate, preferably a Munsif-Magistrate, for disposal according to law.
Narayan, J.
1. These two applications have been heard together. The application which has been registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 223 of 1951 is for the transfer of a case under Sec.211 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Mr. J. P. Singh, Subdivisional Magistrate of Khunti, from his file to the file of any other competent Magistrate, and the application which has been registered as Criminal Revision No. 575 of 1951 is an application for directing a further enquiry into the case on account of the dismissal of which the petitioner is being prosecuted under Sec.211 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. On the 8th of May, 1950, the petitioner lodged a first information report at the Tamar police station in which certain very serious allegations were made by him against the Inspector of Amins, deputed for the demarcation of forests, a Forest Guard and certain constables of the Armed Force. The occurrence was alleged to have taken place on that very day at 9 A.M. and the first information re- port was lodged at 4 P. M. The allegations were that the abovementioned persons went to the shop or the house of the complainant and asked him to supply flour, sugar and ghee, Neither the complainant nor his brother Gangadhar Sahu, who happened to be at the shop at the time, was prepared to supply them anything until the price was paid : and when Gangadhar Sahu demanded the price, he was assaulted and dragged out of the shop. The applicant, on seeing this, went inside his house and from there saw his brother Sadhu Sahu and a co-villager of his named Dina Sahu being assaulted by the constables and the Inspector. The constables kept a watch on his house, but he managed to get out after scaling the walls and ran to the house of one Raghunandan Sahu. At Raghunandan Sahus place he learnt from Sadhu Sahu and Dina Sahu that the Inspector and the members of the Armed Force had assaulted them and had extorted a sum of Rs. 5/- from each of them. The village chaukidar was then called and informed about the occurrence, and the petitioner started for the police station where he lodged the first information report. The police took up the investigation of the case, but they submitted a final report false and recommended the prosecution of the complainant under Sec.211 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Subdivisional Magistrate, therefore held a judicial enquiry and after the enquiry agreed with the police report that the case was maliciously false. The report of the learned magistrate is dated the 26th of August, 1950 and on the 18th of September, 1950, the petitioner filed a protest petition on which the learned magistrate passed the following order:
"Perused the petition of Ramkisto Sahu filed on 18-9-50. I went through the connected records. I have already made an exhaustive enquiry and written a report. I have passed order in C. R. Case No. 120 of 1950 in which I have held the case to be maliciously false and ordered for prosecution of the informant under Sec.211, I. P. C. There is no ground to change my order. The petition will be filed."
The case under Sec.211 of the Indian Penal Code is in the file of the same learned magistrate, and the petitioner contends that in view of the report submitted by this learned magistrate he should not have kept this case in his own file. An application in revision for directing further enquiry has been filed before the learned Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur and it was heard by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, who dismissed the application with the observa-ton that this was not a fit case for directing further enquiry.
3. In my opinion, this is a fit case in which further enquiry ought to be ordered and it was very improper on the part of the learned Subdivisional Magistrate to have kept the case under Sec.211 of the Indian Penal Code in his own file after he had made such strong observations against the complainant in his report. Even the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has obse
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.