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

1950 Supreme(Cal) 97

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Das Gupta, Lahiri
DURGA DUTT KHEMKA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Revn.  265  Of  1950
Decided On : MAY 19, 1950

Advocates Appeared:
Nikhil Chandra Talukdar, SURESH CHANDRA TALUQDAR

The absence of a proper complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure rendered the action taken by the learned Magistrate improper and illegal.

Headnote:

Complaint - West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948 - The court found that the action taken by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the case, issuing process, and finally convicting the petitioner was improper and illegal due to the absence of a proper complaint made under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was convicted under Section 41 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948 for disconnecting the electric line supplying electricity to the sub-tenant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no proper complaint made under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and consequently set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, making the Rule absolute and discharging the petitioner from his bail-bond.

Issues: Improper and illegal action taken by the learned Magistrate due to absence of a proper complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a proper complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure rendered the action taken by the learned Magistrate improper and illegal.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of conviction and sentence, making the Rule absolute and discharging the petitioner from his bail-bond.

DAS GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS rule was obtained by the petitioner against his conviction under Section 41. West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that the complainant Keshardas Chowdhury was a sub-tenant under this petitioner, and that the petitioner without just and sufficient cause disconnected; the electric line from which Keshardas gets his supply of electricity.

( 3 ) MR. Taluqdar has drawn our attention to the fact that in what has been treated as the petition of complaint under Section 41, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, there was really no prayer for any action against this petitioner from which it could be said that this was a petition of complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this petition Keshardas describing himself as the complainant stated that he was a subtenant under the accused, mentioned some disputes between him and the present petitioner as regards rent, stated that in August, 1949, this petitioner once disconnected the line, and stated finally that on 1-11-1949,, the petitioner disconnected this line. The prayer that was made was in these words:"the petitioner therefore most humbly prays that Your Honour be pleased to issue an order on O/c Barrabazar P. S. , to see that the connection is restored and give a warning to the accused to refrain from, harassing the petitioner in this illegal way, or any other order as to Your Honour appears to be just and proper. "complaint has been defined in Section 4 (h), Criminal P. C. in these terms:" 'complaint' means the allegation made orally, on in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking; action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include the report of a police officer. "

( 4 ) FROM the prayer that was made in the petition of Keshardas, I am of the opinion that Mr. Taluqdar is right in his contention that there was no proper complaint made under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the action taken by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the case, issuing process, and finally convicting this petitioner was improper and illegal.

( 5 ) FOR these reasons, I would set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.

( 6 ) THIS Rule is made absolute. The petitioner will be discharged from his bail-bond.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top