Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
G. N. Prasad, J.
KRISHNA BAHADUR –Petitioner
VERSUS
PARMANAND GORWARA & OTHERS -Opposite Party
GAURI SHANKAR BHAGAT –Petitioner
VERSUS
PARMANAND GORWARA - 0pposite Party
BALDEO PRASAD KEJRI WAL
NARMADA DEVI KEJRIWAL alias NARBADA KEJRIWAL
RATNI DEVI KEJRIWAL - Petitioners
VERSUS
PARMANAND GORWARA - Opposite Party
BADRI DAS AGRAWALA
LAKHAN LAL AGRAWAL –Petitioners
VERSUS
PARMANAND GORWARA & ANOTHER -Opposite Party
SRI KANT RAI alias SHRIMANT KUMAR RAI -Petitioner
VERSUS
PARMANAND GORWARA -Opposite Party
KEDAR NATH VERMA –Petitioner
VERSUS
PARMANAND GORWARA AND OTHERS -Opposite Party
Cr. Misc. Nos.1151, 1237, 1410, 1537, 1733 and 2096 of 1970)
Decided On : 24th May, 1972
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 561A - Miscellaneous applications - Cognizance of offences - Transfer of case - Jurisdiction of transferee Magistrate to issue processes - Inherent powers of transferee Magistrate - Section 192 - Section 204 - Section 242 - Section 252.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, numbering nine in all, figure as accused in a Complaint Case No. 196 of 1969 wherein cognizance was taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Patna City (Shri J. Jha) on the 23rd December, 1969, in regard to offences under Sections 379/406/409/420/467 and 120 B, Indian Penal Code, said to have been committed between the 6th and the 22nd December, 1966. After taking cognizance and without recording any ORDER :as contemplated by Section 204 of the Code, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate by the same ORDER :transferred the case to the Court of Shri I.N. Sinha, Munsif Magistrate, Patna City for “favour of disposal”. The petitioners have not only assailed the ORDER :of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate dated the 23rd December, 1969, as illegal and without jurisdiction, but have also characterised the entire proceeding before the learned Munsif Magistrate as illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground that he was not empowered to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(a) nor was he the successor-in-office, either permanent or temporary, of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Patna City so as to be competent to issue processes against the accused persons under Section 204 of the Code.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Munsif Magistrate in the present case had full jurisdiction to issue summonses against the accused persons under his ORDER :dated the 2nd January I 1970 and that there is no substance in the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioners that the entire proceeding before the learned Munsif Magistrate is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate ought not to have entertained the petition of complaint which was presented to him on the 23rd December, 1969? 2. Whether the petition of complaint dated the 23rd December, 1969 discloses no criminal offence against any of the petitioners, not even against the petitioners mentioned in paragraph 31 of the complaint petition? 3. Whether the learned Munsif Magistrate to whom the case was transferred by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate for disposal had no jurisdiction to issue processes against the accused persons, which he has done by his ORDER :dated the 2nd January, 1970?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The law does not prohibit the entertainment of a second complaint in regard to the same allegations. But a second complaint cannot be entertained as a matter of course. For example, where the previous complaint has been properly dealt with and dismissed under Section 203 of the Code, the remedy of the complainant is by way of an application for further inquiry under Section 436 of the Code. A second complaint can, however, be entertained under exceptional circumstances; for example, “where the previous ORDER :was passed On an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings have been adduced” (see A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court 876, at page 899). 2. Upon a careful consideration of the entire allegations contained in the complaint petition, I have come to the conclusion that no criminal offence has been disclosed against any of the petitioners except petitioners Badri Das Agrawal and Lakhan Lal Agrawal. 3. The transferee Magistrate does not issue processes against the accused persons under Section 204, but he does so in exercise of his inherent powers in respect of the case which has been transferred to him for inquiry or trial under Section 192 of the Code.
Final Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1537 of 1970 is dismissed and the rule obtained by petitioners Badri Das Agrawal and Lakhan Lal Agrawal is discharged. The remaining five applications are allowed and the prosecution is quashed as against the remaining seven petitioners.
G. N. Pasasaa, J.
These six miscellaneous applications under Section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, arise out of the same matter and have, accordingly, been heard together. The petitioners, numbering nine in all, figure as accused in a Complaint Case No. 196 of 1969 wherein cognizance was taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Patna City (Shri J. Jha) on the 23rd December, 1969, in regard to offences under Sections 379/406/409/420/467 and 120 B, Indian Penal Code, said to have been committed between the 6th and the 22nd December, 1966. After taking cognizance and without recording any ORDER :as contemplated by Section 204 of the Code the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate by the same ORDER :transferred the case to the Court of Shri I.N. Sinha, Munsif Magistrate, Patna City for “favour of disposal". The petitioners have not only assailed the ORDER :of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate dated the 23rd December, 1969, as illegal and without jurisdiction, but have also characterised the entire proceeding before the learned Munsif Magistrate as illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground that he was not empowered to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(a) nor was he the successor-in-office, either permanent or temporary, of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Patna City so as to be competent to issue processes against the accused persons under Section 204 of the Code. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the entire proceeding taken against them in the complaint case aforesaid should be quashed.
2. Among the petitioners, Krishna Bahadur (the sole petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 1151 of 1970) is the proprietor of a firm known as the Central Commercial Corporation. Two of the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1410 of 1970, namely Baldeo Prasad Kejriwal and Narmada Devi Kejriwal are the partners of M/s. Bhagwan Das Baijnath Narmada Devi Kejriwal and Ratna Devi Kejriwal (the third petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 1510 of 1970) are partners of another firms known as M/S Binod Textiles Badri Das Agrawal and Lakhan Lal Agarwal, the two petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1537 of 1970, are the proprietors of a firm of Commission Agents known as M/s Badri Das And Sons. Srikant Rai alias Shrimant Kumar Rai, the sole petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1733 of 1970, was at the relevant time the Godown Keeper of the Central Bank of India, Patna City Likewise, Gauri Shankar Bhagat, the sole petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1237 of 1970, was the Godown Keeper of the Bank of Bihar Ltd. Patna City Branch of the same Branch of the Bank of Bihar Ltd. Kedar Nath Verma, the sole petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2096 of 1970, was then the Manager.
3. It appears from the petition of complaint which was filed on the 23rd December, 1969 by Parmanand Gorwara, Sub-Agent of the Central Bank of India at the relevant time, that one of the types of business which used to be done by the Bank was a business of advancing credit facilities or loan to respectable parties on the security or hypothecation of goods in trade, commonly known as Cash Credit account. The duty of the Godown Keeper was to receive the goods brought to the godown by the limit holders, to keep them in the godown under lock and key and to sign a storage invoice in token of having received and stored the goods in the godown. On the basis of the storage invoice signed by the Godown Keeper, the limit holders on presenting it at the Bank could draw a cheque up to the value of other goods previously stored by them in the godown and either take a fresh advance of loan from the Bank or take delivery of other goods stored in the godown. The further allegations contained in the petition of complaint are as follows: Messrs Bhagwan Dass Baijnath had a cash credit account with the Central Bank of India at its Muzaffarpur Office wherein the sanctioned limit of credit was Rs. 2,20,000/-. Some time in July, 1963,
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
