PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.Falshaw, J.
Shankar Singh Ganda Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 224 of 1953,
Decided On : AUGUST 13, 1953
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - TRANSFER OF CASES - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - LEGALITY OF ORDER DIRECTING POLICE TO REGISTER CASE ON COMPLAINT - CONVERSION OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT INTO OFFICIAL PROSECUTION - POWERS OF POLICE UNDER SECTION 156, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Dr. Shankar Singh, Managing Agent of Hoshiarpur Dasuya Bus Service Limited, filed five petitions: three under Section 526, Criminal P. C., for transfer of cases pending against him in Hoshiarpur to another district, and two under Section 561A, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing proceedings in two of the cases. The cases arose from a complaint by Suraj Parkash, President of the District Transport Workers Union, alleging embezzlement and falsification of accounts by the petitioner and other company officials. The District Magistrate treated the complaint as a first information report and ordered the Police to investigate. Later, based on a statement by the company's Accountant, Rura Ram Sharma, the District Magistrate directed the Police to register a case and investigate. The petitioner challenged the legality of this order and sought transfer and quashing of proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the District Magistrate's order directing the Police to register a case and investigate was not illegal. The Court found that the nature of the cases warranted investigation by the Police and prosecution by the official prosecuting agency rather than a private complaint, especially in the case involving the alleged fraudulent transfer of shares belonging to a Muslim evacuee. The Court also held that the Police's powers under Section 156, Criminal Procedure Code, are not affected by an order to investigate under Section 202, and that the Police can investigate and submit a charge-sheet even when a complaint has been made to the Magistrate.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Magistrate's order directing the Police to register a case and investigate was illegal. 2. Whether the proceedings in the cases against the petitioner should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the District Magistrate's order was not illegal because: a) The alleged offences could only be adequately investigated by the Police and properly prosecuted by the official prosecuting agency. b) The nature of the case involving the alleged fraudulent transfer of shares belonging to a Muslim evacuee required investigation by the Police. c) The Police's powers under Section 156, Criminal Procedure Code, are not affected by an order to investigate under Section 202, and the Police can investigate and submit a charge-sheet even when a complaint has been made to the Magistrate. 2. The Court held that the proceedings in the cases against the petitioner should not be quashed because: a) The allegations in the complaint, if true, disclosed offences. b) There was no evidence to support the contention that the allegations were incapable of proof. c) There was no legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the applications for quashing the proceedings in the cases against the petitioner and accepted the transfer petitions only to the extent of ordering that the District Magistrate withdraw the cases from the Court of the Additional District Magistrate and try them himself. The Court directed that the trial be conducted expeditiously.
Falshaw, J.
1. This order will dispose of five connected petitions all filed by the same petitioner Dr. Shankar Singh describing himself as the Managing Agent of Hoshiarpur Dasuya Bus Service Limited, Hoshiarpur. Three of the petitions are under Section 526, Criminal P. C., and are for the transfer to some other district of three cases which are pending in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate at Hoshiarpur in which the petitioner is an accused person, the cases being under Sections 406, 408, 409 and 471A, Indian Penal Code, Section 384, Penal Code, and Section 32 read with Section 36 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, The other two petitions are under Section 561A, Criminal Procedure Code, and are for the quashing of proceedings in the first and third of the above mentioned cases, the second case under Section 384, Penal Code, having apparently been overlooked by the petitioner in this connection, since the cases are all inter-connected and he wants all the proceedings against him to be quashed.
2. The petitioner and the other persons who are involved as accused in these cases are all apparently connected with the management of the Hoshiarpur-Dasuya Bus Service Limited, and there does not seem to be any doubt that the cases against them were started in a somewhat unusual and unorthodox manner. The original complaint was in the form of the letter addressed to the District Magistrate of Hoshiarpur by a gentleman named Suraj Parkash describing himself as the President of the District Transport Workers Union of Hoshiarpur. This letter is dated 12-11-1952 and it was apparently presented by Suraj Parkash in person to the learned District Magistrate, Who apparently treated the letter as a complaint, and recorded the statements of Suraj Parkash and one Jiwan Singh who described himself as an Assistant Cashier in the Bus Company and thereafter on the same day ordered the issue of search warrants under Section 06, Criminal P. C., as a result of which the Police raided the Companys office and seized all the books.
The allegations in the complaint were that the management of the company was keeping false account books and embezzling money which was the property of the company by making false entries about payments to non-existing employees and showing actual employees as receiving larger wages than they were really receiving, and there are other allegations of this kind, including one of non-payment of the proper passenger tax, and it was also alleged that the shares of an evacuee named Ghulam Mohammad had been fraudulently transferred in the name of a Director of the company. It seems that the Investigation of the Companys affairs was entrusted by the learned District Magistrate to the Police though no formal order for an enquiry by the Police under Section 202, Criminal P. C., appears to have been passed, and whether as a result of the investigation or not it seems that on 19-12-1952 Rura Ram Sharma, the Accountant of the company, appeared before the District Magistrate and made a comprehensive statement about the alleged misdeeds of the persons in charge of the companys affairs with the result that on that date the learned District Magistrate passed this order: "The complaint and the above statement of the complainant along with the documents Exhibits P-l to P-5 produced reveal commission of offence under Sections 406, 408, 409, 417 and 420, Indian Penal Code, and offences under the Indian Income Tax Act, Indian Companies Act and Administration of Evacuee Property Act. I therefore direct Station House Office City to register a case on the basis of this complaint and the statement and investigate and take further necessary action."
In other words, it seems that the learned District Magistrate decided that the earlier complaint of Suraj Parkash, which was in any case very vague and obviously made by a person who did not have first-hand knowledge of the affairs of the company, should be shelved or otherwise
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.