SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(Cal) 52

CHUNDER
MANINDRA NATH – Appellant
Versus
ANIL CHANDRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AJIT KUMAR DUTT, Amaresh Chandra Roy, DHRUBA MUKHERJI, NALIN CHANDRA BANERJI, NIRMAL KUMAR SEN

CHUNDER, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued at the instance of a complainant against an order dismissing the complainant's petition under Section 500, Penal Code. The complainant came to Court with the allegation that at the instance of one Krishna Chandra Mukherji, an auditor appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act, viz. , Sri Anil Chandra Banerji, had 'mala fide' submitted an audit report containing grave allegations of a defamatory character "against him.

( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate in dismissing the petition has now given reasons that unless the audit is done over again it is difficult to say whether the allegations are 'mala fide' or not. This is the main reason for dismissing the petition of complaint. Two things may be said against this. The first is that the complainant should then have been given an opportunity to prove that these were really 'mala fide' statements in the audit report by such mate- rials as might satisfy the learned Magistrate or an enquiring officer. Before his petition can be dismissed in this case he is entitled to this Opportunity. Secondly, the learned Magistrate did not, when the complaint was first filed before him, proceed to dismiss the appli



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top