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

1957 Supreme(Raj) 245

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Bapna & Bhandari, JJ.
Gopal - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Reference N. 38 of 1957
Decided On : October 29, 1957

Advocates Appeared:
G.S. Bhargava for Applicant; B.C. Chaterjee for State

Headnote:Criminal P.C., secs. 207, 207 A and 208—Challan and complaint—Consolidation—Procedure to be followed—Challan to be separated from complaint both to be proceeded separately under secs. 207-A and 208 respectively.

       

Bapna, J.—This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City.

2. Kotwali Police, Jaipur produced a challan on 17th April, 1956 against one Radhey Shyam for an oftence under sec. 307 I.P.C. triable by the court of session. The complaint Panchu subsequently, filed a complaint on 22nd May, 1956 against six persons including Radhey Shyam for having committed the offence under sec. 307 I.P.C. in respect of the same incident. The Assistant Collector and Magistrate First Glass, Jaipur City passed an order c Consolidating the two proceedings and began to proceed against all the accused in one proceedings An application was submitted on behalf of one of the accused, Gopal, that the procedure prescribed under sec. 208 Cr.P.C. and subsequent sections be followed in the case. The Magistrate, however, preferred to proceed according to the procedure laid down in sec. 207-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Gopal filed a revision and the learned Session Judge was of the view that as the complaint had been consolidated with the challan, the procedure under sec. 208 Cr.P.C. and subsequent sections should have been followed in the case. In our opinion the initial mistake lay in consolidating the police challan with the complaint. According to the amended Criminal Procedure Code the procedure for enquiry in cases triable by the court of session on police report has been simplified and by tagging the police challan with the complaint the very purpose of expediting trial is frustrated. The procedure under sec. 208 and subsequent sections is different and the reason for this difference is that while the police is not interested in one or the other party, the complainant is a person interested and satisfactory evidence is necessary to be recorded by the court before it comes to the conclusion that the accused should be committed.

3. We, therefore, direct that the challan should be separated from the complaint and while the challan may be proceeded against according to sec. 207-A of the Code, the procedure in respect of the complaint may be followed under sec. 208 and subsequent sections. The two should be enquired into separately.


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 Back to top