Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. K. SEN, BHATTACHARYYA, K. C. SEN
SAURENDRA MOHAN BASU - Appellant
Versus
SAROJ RANJAN SARKAR - Respondent
Criminal Revn 1049 Of 1959
Decided On : DECEMBER 23, 1960
The Court held that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint in the absence of sanction under Section 196a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the petition of complaint discloses an offence of criminal conspiracy in relation to a non-cognizable offence and therefore, cognizance could not be taken in the absence of sanction by the State Government or by the Chief Presidency Magistrate himself. The Court also held that the Magistrate entertaining a fresh complaint after a previous dismissal of a complaint or after a previous discharge of an accused, could entertain a fresh complaint when there was manifest error or manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order or when fresh evidence is forthcoming.
Fact of the Case:
The present complaint of Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, the youngest brother of the late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, was filed on 3-4-59. But before the present complaint filed by Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, a previous complaint on the same facts was filed by Promode Ranjan Sarkar, second brother of the late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. That complaint was filed on 17-3-54 and was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the then Chief Presidency Magistrate Sri N. C. Chakravarti on 6-8-54. Thereafter, a Revisional application (Revision Case No. 1059 of 1954) was filed by Promode Ranjan Sarkar; but this Revisional application was dismissed or 8-7-55 by Debabrata Mookerjee, J. Then the complainant Promode Ranjan Sarkar applied for a certificate of fitness for appeal under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution; but such certificate was refused by a Bench of this Court on 1-9-55. Then the complainant applied for special leave from the Supreme Court and obtained such leave on 13-2-56, but ultimately the complainant Promode Ranjan Sarkar did not proceed with the appeal before the Supreme Court and withdrew it! by filing a petition on 12-3-59.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint in the absence of sanction under Section 196a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the petition of complaint discloses an offence of criminal conspiracy in relation to a non-cognizable offence and therefore, cognizance could not be taken in the absence of sanction by the State Government or by the Chief Presidency Magistrate himself. The Court also held that the Magistrate entertaining a fresh complaint after a previous dismissal of a complaint or after a previous discharge of an accused, could entertain a fresh complaint when there was manifest error or manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order or when fresh evidence is forthcoming.
Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint in the absence of sanction under Section 196a of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 2. Whether the Magistrate entertaining a fresh complaint after a previous dismissal of a complaint or after a previous discharge of an accused, could entertain a fresh complaint when there was manifest error or manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order or when fresh evidence is forthcoming?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint in the absence of sanction under Section 196a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the petition of complaint discloses an offence of criminal conspiracy in relation to a non-cognizable offence and therefore, cognizance could not be taken in the absence of sanction by the State Government or by the Chief Presidency Magistrate himself. The Court also held that the Magistrate entertaining a fresh complaint after a previous dismissal of a complaint or after a previous discharge of an accused, could entertain a fresh complaint when there was manifest error or manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order or when fresh evidence is forthcoming.
Final Decision: Both the Rules are discharged.
( 1 ) THESE two Revisional applications are directed against an order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Sri Bijayesh Mukherji issuing process under Sections 467/109 and 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners S. M. Basil and P. N. Talukdar. Revision Case No. 681 of 1959 has been filed by S. M. Basu and Revision Case No. 1049 of 1959 has been filed by P. N. Talukdar.
( 2 ) THE petition of Complaint by the present complainant Saroj Ranjan Sarkar who is the youngest brother of the late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, was filed on 3-4-59. But before the present complaint filed by Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, a previous complaint on the same facts was filed by Promode Ranjan Sarkar, second brother of the late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. That complaint was filed on 17-3-54 and was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the then Chief Presidency Magistrate Sri N. C. Chakravarti on 6-8-54. Thereafter, a Revisional application (Revision Case No. 1059 of 1954) was filed by Promode Ranjan Sarkar; but this Revisional application was dismissed or 8-7-55 by Debabrata Mookerjee, J. Then the complainant Promode Ranjan Sarkar applied for a certificate of fitness for appeal under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution; but such certificate was refused by a Bench of this Court on 1-9-55. Then the complainant applied for special leave from the Supreme Court and obtained such leave on 13-2-56, but ultimately the complainant Promode Ranjan Sarkar did not proceed with the appeal before the Supreme Court and withdrew it! by filing a petition on 12-3-59. The present complaint of Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, the youngest brother of Promode. Ranjan Sarkar, was filed on 3-4-59, i. e. , about 22 days after his elder brother Pro-mode Ranjan Sarkar had withdrawn from the appeal before the Supreme Court.
( 3 ) THE facts alleged by the complainant are briefly as follows:-P. N. Talukdar was a paid employee of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. upto the end of July, 1953. He was also a Director of the N. R. Sarkar and Co. Ltd. N. R. Sarkar and Co. Ltd. was the Managing Agent of several public limited companies, e. g. , Hindusthan Development Corporation Ltd. , Hindusthan Heavy Chemicals Ltd. and Hindusthan Pilkington Glass Works Limited. Nalini Ranjan Sajkar during his life-time was the Governing Director of N. R. Sarkar and Co. Ltd. On 4th January, 1948, he obtained leave from the Directors of the company for a period of one year with a view to joining the cabinet o the West Bengal Government as Finance Minister and he assumed office as Finance Minister on the 23rd January, 1948. This leave was subsequently extended. Nalini Ranjan Sarkar was the owner of 4649 shares of N. R. Sarkar and Co. Ltd. , and 299 shares of that company were held by P. N. Talukdar; 50 by Promode Ranjan Sarkar; Santi Ranjan Sarkar, son of a deceased brother of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar held one share and one sliare had been assigned to Dr. P. C. Roy and was held by him. Thus Nalini Ranjan Sarkar was the owner of the overwhelming proportion of shares and he was the Managing Director and for all practical purposes he was the owner of the company N. R. Sarkar and Co. Ltd. , and controlled its affairs. On 31st July, 1951, Nalini Ranjan Sarkar executed a deed of trust in, respect of 3649 shares out of the shares held by him in N. R. Sarkar and Co. Ltd. and in respect of certain other shares with which we are not Concerned. By the Trust Deed he appointed Promode Ranjan Sarkar, P. N. Talukdar and Dr. N. N. Law as the Trustees, and the beneficiaries under the Trust deed were the four brothers of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, namely, Promode Ranjan Sarkar, Pabitra Ranjan Sarkar, Prafulla Ranjan Sarkar and Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, and the son of a deceased brother, Santi Ranjan Sarkar. The balance of one thousand shares in N. R. Sarkar and Co. Ltd. was kept in deposit with P. N. Talukdar; and according to the complainant's case, that last was also h
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
