Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA (RANCHI BENCH)
S. Ali Ahmad, J.
STATE OF BIHAR - Petitioner
VERSUS
HARI KRISHNA SAHAI & OTHERS - Opp. Party
Cr. Rev. No. 297 of 1979 (R)
Decided on : 8th September, 1980
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - CLOSURE OF CASE - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - DELAY IN INVESTIGATION - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - POWER TO QUASH INVESTIGATION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an investigation into allegations of cheating and breach of trust by a lottery agent and a district lottery officer. The investigation was ongoing for four years, and the accused were released on bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate closed the case and discharged the accused from their bail bonds due to the delay in the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to close the case and discharge the accused. The court also held that the delay in the investigation did not amount to mala fide and that the power to quash an investigation cannot be exercised under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate had the jurisdiction to close the case and discharge the accused? 2. Whether the delay in the investigation amounted to mala fide? 3. Whether the power to quash an investigation can be exercised under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to close the case and discharge the accused because there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prescribes the period by which the investigation must be completed and report in final form must be submitted. 2. The court held that the delay in the investigation did not amount to mala fide because there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prescribes the period by which the investigation must be completed and report in final form must be submitted. 3. The court held that the power to quash an investigation cannot be exercised under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application with a direction that the learned Magistrate may enlarge the opposite-parties on their furnishing bail and also dispense with their personal attendance until the submission of charge-sheet.
S. Ali Ahmad, J. - This is an application on behalf of the State of Bihar against the order dated 2.7.1979 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, wherein he ordered the case to be closed and to discharge the opposite-parties from the bail bond.
2. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, some facts may be mentioned which are as follows:
The Additional District Magistrate; Ranchi, gave a report dated 7.6.1976 in writing to the officer-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi, wherein, inter alia it was said that from the report of the District Accounts Officer, (Opposite-party No.3) dated 19.3.1976, it appeared that 31 cheques amounting to Rs. 13,01,697.75 paise had been issued by opposite-party No. 1 during the period beginning from 15.3.1974 to 20.12.1975 in favour of the District Lottery Officer, Ranchi (Opposite-party No.2) drawn on different banks. It is further said that on receipt of the cheques, the District Lottery Officer, Ranchi (Opposite-party No.2) issued lottery tickets to opposite-party No.1 from time to time against the cheques in spite of the fact that his earlier cheques were not honoured by the banks concerned. This according to the Additional District Magistrate, indicated that the District Lottery Officer acted against financial rules and all cannon of propriety in collusion with opposite-party no. 1 and thus they put the State Government to a loss of Rs. 13,01,697.75 Paise. Thereafter in paragraph 3 of the report, the Additional District Magistrate mentioned as to how from time to time the District Lottery Officer gave incorrect report about the receipt of the sale proceeds of the tickets. Towards the end of this paragraph, it was said:
"Thus it will appear that the total outstanding dues till, the 63rd draw as reported by the District Lottery Officer, Ranchi was only Rs. 1,91,670/- though in reality the amount was Rs. 13,01,698.75 as per report of the District Accounts Officer, Ranchi referred to above."
After mentioning these facts, the Additional District Magistrate requested the officer-in-charge to investigate the matter against the Lottery Agent (opposite-party No.1), the District Lottery Officer (opposite-party No.2) and other persons involved in the matter. He also said that legal action be taken against the guilty persons under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of this report, the Kotwali Police registered a case under Sections 420, 496, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and took up investigation. Opposite-party No.2 and the District Accounts Officer (opposite party No. 3) were arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8th June, 1976 and 9th June, 1976. They were subsequently after some time released on bail. Opposite-party No. 1 also (who was in custody in connection with another case) was remanded in this case on 2.9.1976. He also, like other two opposite-parties was released on bail after some time. The investigation thereafter merrily continued and these opposite-parties went on appearing on the dates fixed.
3. Since no report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted by the Police, the Magistrate every time directed the Police to submit final form and adjourned the case for two or three weeks. This process continued, when on 16.5.1979 the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order to the following effect :
"Final form has not been received. Write a letter to the Officer-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station to submit final form by 2.7.1979 failing which it will be presumed that there is no material for proceeding with the case."
As usual, the investigating authorities took this order lightly and kept mum. The next date in the case was 2.7.1979. It does not appear from the order recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that anyone appeared on behalf of the prosecution. It, however, appears from the impugned order that neither the report in final form under Secti
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
