Judges : V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR,V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI,GEORGE VADAKKEL
BHARGHAVI AMMA - Appellant
Versus
RAVINDRAN NAIR - Respondent
Case No : Crl.R.P. No. 167,183 of 1977
Decided On : 03/09/1979
Advocates Appeared :
C.P. Damodaran Nayar, M.K. Chandramohandas & T.G.Latha For Petitioner P.V. Aiyappan, P.K. Venugopalan, V.M. Nayanar, M. Krishnakumar & R. Krishnan Nair For Respondents
Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge of Accused - S.200, S.202, S.203, S.226, S.227, S.228 - The court discussed the discretionary jurisdiction of the Magistrate under S.202 of the Code, the process of issuing process, and the commitment of the case to the Court of Session. The court emphasized that the Magistrate is required to issue process only when satisfied of a prima facie case for the complainant and that the accused has no locus standi at this stage. The court also highlighted that under the present Code, if the Magistrate issues process for a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he has to commit the case to the Court of Session. The court concluded that the accused are entitled to seek their discharge under S.227 of the Code, and the Sessions Court is bound to discharge them if the judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The wife of the 1st petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was later transferred to the II Class Magistrate and then to the Court of Session. The accused were discharged under S.227 of the Code as there was no evidence to show that the accused committed the alleged offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate is required to issue process only when satisfied of a prima facie case for the complainant and that the accused has no locus standi at this stage. The court also emphasized that under the present Code, if the Magistrate issues process for a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he has to commit the case to the Court of Session.
Issues: The issues revolved around the discretionary jurisdiction of the Magistrate under S.202 of the Code, the process of issuing process, and the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.
Ratio Decidendi: The Magistrate is required to issue process only when satisfied of a prima facie case for the complainant and that the accused has no locus standi at this stage. Under the present Code, if the Magistrate issues process for a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he has to commit the case to the Court of Session.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the revision petitions and upheld the discharge of the accused under S.227 of the Code.
1. The petitioner in Crl. R. P. No. 167 of 1977 is the wife of the 1st petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 183 of 1977. The other petitioner in Crl. R.P.No.183 of 1977 is the son of the Ist petitioner therein. The petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 167 of 1977 filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. After recording her statement but not of any witness, presumably because none was present, the Magistrate issued process. He then transferred the case to the II Class Magistrate, Malappuram. The accused were summoned before that court. That court committed the case to the Court of Session, Manjeri. The Sessions Court discharged the accused under S.227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as but for 'the bald allegations in the Complaint and the complainant's interested sworn statement there is nothing on record to show that the accused have committed the offences alleged.' The father and son, the petitioners in Crl. R.P. No. 183 of 1977, are the accused in a complaint in respect of the same transaction, delivery of immovable property pursuant to a partition decree filed by one of the accused in the other case an Amin attached to the District Court, Manjeri. Since that case relates to offences not exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, the Sessions Court transferred the to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri.
2. Our learned brother Poti, J., doubting the correctness of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sulaiman v Eachara Warrier 1978 KLT. 424 has referred these cases for decision by a larger Bench, and thus these cases are before us. That decision takes the view that it is not obligatory upon a Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint, to adopt the course open to him under S.202 of the Code, and it is only if he decides upon that course and further, to hold an inquiry as envisaged thereunder that he need call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath even if the complaint discloses an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session. It is stated in the reference order that in cases where the complaint discloses an offence triable exclusively by a Sessions Court, if the Magistrate does not hold an inquiry by calling upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examining them or does not direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as the Magistrate thinks fit, the Public Prosecutor who is to open the case before the Sessions Court would not be in a position to say what evidence he proposes to let in to sustain the charge.
3. The scheme of the Code, as was of the old Code, is that the Magistrate is required to issue process only on his being satisfied of a prima facie case for the complainant. So, S.200 thereof, as did S.200 of the old Code, provides that he shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, and S.202, like S.202 of the old Code, enables him, 'if he thinks fit', to postpone issue of process, so that he may inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for deciding whether a prima facie case exists for issue of process. At this stage, preparatory to issue of process and inorder to determine whether process should be issued or not, the accused has no locus standi, and it is for the complainant to make out a primafacie case for issue of process, by producing witnesses for examination on oath by the Magistrate who is bound to examine such witnesses as are present. Further, the Magistrate, in his discretion, may, at this stage, hold an inquiry into the case himself or cause the same to be investigated by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit in order to decide whether process should be issued or not. As in the matter of any discretionary jurisdiction vested in a court, it would not be proper to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when such discretion is to be exercised; nor is it possible or feasible.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.