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

1998 Supreme(Cal) 473

High Court Of Calcutta
NIRENDRA KRISHNA MITRA
P.P.PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
LT.COMMANDER - Respondent
C. R. R.  2400  Of  1998
Decided On : 11/10/1998

Advocates Appeared:
B.K.DAS, R.S.SARUP

Section 475 of the CrPC applies when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and finds that there is a triable case before him, even if charges have not been framed or a charge sheet has not been issued.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 475 - SECTION 200 TO 204 - SECTION 401 - SECTION 482 - ARTICLE 227 - TRANSFER OF CASE FROM MAGISTRATE COURT TO COURT MARTIAL - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 475 - INTERPRETATION AND SCOPE - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS - JUDICIAL DETERMINATION - COURT MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a complaint case alleging illegal trespass, assault, and wrongful confinement by the accused, a Navy personnel. The accused sought transfer of the case to a Court Martial under Section 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Judicial Magistrate allowed the transfer, and the Sessions Judge upheld the order. The petitioner challenged the transfer order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 475 of the CrPC applies when a person is brought before a Magistrate and charged with an offence for which he is liable to be tried either by a Court to which the CrPC applies or by a Court Martial. The court found that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons, which was sufficient to attract Section 475.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 475 of the CrPC applies only when charges have been framed or a charge sheet has been issued. 2. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to transfer the case to a Court Martial.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 475 of the CrPC to mean that it applies when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and finds that there is a triable case before him, even if charges have not been framed or a charge sheet has not been issued. 2. The court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to transfer the case to a Court Martial because he had taken cognizance of the offence and was satisfied that there was a triable case before him.

Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the transfer order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

NIRENDRA KRISHNA MITRA, J.


( 1 ) THE petitioner initially on 5th Nov. 1998 sought to move a Criminal Revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging, inter alia, the order dated 22-9-1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands at Port Blair in Revision Case No. 11 of 1998 moved against the order No. 20 dated 15-9-1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (II) at Port Blair in C. R. Case No. 34 of 1995 under Section 448/323/342, I. P. C. , Since I refused to entertain the said Criminal Revisional application on the ground that no second revision lies to this Hon'ble Court against an order of the learned Sessions Judge passed on a revisional application, on the prayer of Mr. B. K. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner, the petition was allowed to be converted into a Criminal Revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, and I further directed that the petitioner should be allowed to challenge the order of the learned Sessions Judge only.

( 2 ) SHORN off all details, the facts of the case, inter alia, and that the petitioner filed a complaint case under Section 200 of the C. P. C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair, alleging that the accused-respondent No. 1 along with 6 other Navy personnel came to the residence of the petitioner on 29-9-1995 at about 11. 30 p. m. without showing any search warrant and trespassed into the room of the petitioner and the petitioner was severely beaten by the accused-respondent No. 1. the accused respondent No. 1 thereafter showing a suit case containing certain documents which he had brought from out side and pressurised the petitioner to accept the said suitcase as his own and also compelled the petitioner to sign on a blank paper. The said accused respondent No. 1 also took Rs. 24,450/- in cash and a cheque book of the Punjab National Bank from the petitioner's house and the petitioner was forcibly taken to the Fortress Head Quarter, and was confined there in a small room of the Navy police at the said Head Quarters till 2-10-1975, and during the said illegal confinement, the petitioner was mercilessly beaten by the accused-respondent No. 1 to extort confession. Thereafter on the case date i. e. on 2-10-1995 at about 6 p. m. the accused-respondent No. 1 took the petitioner to the Officer In, charge, Pahargaon Police Station, who was the respondent No. 3, where the petitioner was detained upto 6-10-1995 and on that date at about 6 p. m. the petitioner was taken to C. C. S. Police Station at Port Blair, from where the petitioner was released with a condition that he would attend the C. C. S. Police Station every morning and evening from 7-10-1995 to 26-10-1995 and on 26-10-1995 at about 9. 30 a. m. the petitioner was arrested by the C. C. S. police as per the F. I. R. lodged by the accused-respondent No. 1 on 2-10-1995 at the Pahargaon Police Station. The petitioner thereafter was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate but he was asked to remain in judicial custody till 22-11-1995 when the petitioner was granted bail. After the release, the petitioner filed a complaint in writing to the Station House Officer, Aberdeen P. S. being therespondent No. 2 stating, inter alia, that the accused-respondent No. 1 and his men had trespassed illegally into the house of the petitioner without any search warrant and petitioner was seriously tortured and wrongfully confined, as aforesaid. Thereafter the petitioner made a personal representation before the Superintendent of Police, since no action was taken on the said representation the petitioner had to file a complaint case before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair, which was registered as C. R. 34 of 1995.

( 3 ) ON 9-2-1996 one Lieutenant Commander, Ranbir Singh appeared with a letter of authority as well as with an application from the Commanding Officer, with a prayer of getting charge of the









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