HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Das Gupta, Lahiri
SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS - Appellant
Versus
ABANI KUMAR BANERJEE - Respondent
Criminal Revn. 92 Of 1950
Decided On : MAY 09, 1950
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 190 (1) (A) - TAKING COGNIZANCE - MAGISTRATE NOT BOUND TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE MENTIONED IN COMPLAINT - MAY ORDER INVESTIGATION BY POLICE UNDER SECTION 156 (3).
Fact of the Case:
A petition of complaint was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta. The Magistrate ordered the police to investigate and seize the books of the Bank. A challan was sent up by the police under Section 408, Penal Code, against the accused. The accused was set at liberty by the Magistrate on the ground that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had acted illegally in not examining the complainant under Section 200, Criminal P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The Magistrate was not bound to take cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint. He could have ordered investigation by the police under Section 156 (3), Criminal P. C.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate was bound to take cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 190 (1) (a), Criminal P. C. does not impose an obligation on the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence merely because a petition of complaint is filed before him. The Magistrate may take cognizance and proceed to examine the complaint under Section 200, or he may send it to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3).
Final Decision: The Rule was made absolute, the Magistrate's order directing the accused to be set at liberty was set aside, and the Court was directed to proceed with the trial of the case on the basis that the proceedings up to the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 7th February, 1949, ordering transfer of the case to Mr. C. C. Chakravarti are valid.
( 1 ) ON and February 1948, a petition of complaint was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta by one Haridas Mukherjee. On that petition of complaint, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:"to D. C. D. D. , for enquiry and report. If it is found that the Bank has ceased functioning, the enquiring officer to seize the books at once on the strength of a search warrant I should issue on his application. If the Bank is functioning he should apply to me for instructions. To 13/2. "on 9th February 1948, a report was received that the Bank had ceased functioning. On 10th February 1948, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate ordered issue of a search warrant. A report from the police was received on 23rd March 1948. On 14th June 1948, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate passed the following order: "heard learned Pleader. Let D. C. D. D. , take cognizance of this case at once, and seize the books of this Bank that are necessary. " Thereafter a challan was sent up by the police under Section 408, Penal Code, against Abani Kumar Banerjee. On 7th February 1949, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate recorded the receipt of the challan under Section 408, Penal Code, and then transferred the case to Mr. C. C. Chakravartti for disposal.
( 2 ) THIS learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate had acted illegally and that the accused Abani Kumar Banerjee was before him on the basis of illegal arrest, and accordingly ordered him to be set at liberty; and he fixed a date for the examination of the complainant, apparently under Section 200, Criminal P. C.
( 3 ) IT is against this order of the learned Presidency Magistrate Mr. C. C. Chakravarti, that the present Rule is directed.
( 4 ) THE real question for decision is whether the learned Magistrate is right in his view that when a petition of a complaint was filed before the Chief Magistrate, he was bound to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a), Criminal P. C. If he was so bound, he was certainly bound also to examine the complainant under Section 200, Criminal P. C. , and thereafter proceed in the ways indicated in subsequent Sections 202, 203 and 204 of the Code. If, however, he was not so bound, the action of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate in sending the case to the police without himself examining the complainant under Section 200, Criminal P. C. , cannot be said to be illegal as he would be entitled to order investigation by the police, under Section 156 (3), Criminal P. C.
( 5 ) SEN J. in the case of Samaddar v. Sures Chandra 53 C. W. N. 270 : (A. I. R. (36) 1949 cal. 197) and in some other cases has taken the view that a Magistrate duly empowered to take cognizance is bound to take cognizance of the petition of complaint as soon as it is filed before him. The contrary view has been taken by several Division Benches of this Court of which mention need be made only of two recent decisions, viz. , decision of Roxburgh and Chakravartti JJ. in Robinul Hossain v. K. K. Ram, 82 C. L. J. 222 and the decision of Harries C. J. and Das J. in Pulin Behari Ghosh v. King, 53 C. W. N. 653. In these cases, the view has been clearly expressed that when a petition of complaint is filed before a Magistrate the Magistrate may take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a), Criminal P. C. and proceed to examine the complaint under Section 200, and thereafter proceed according to the subsequent sections of the Code, or in the alternative, may not take cognizance and may instead send it to the police for investigation under the provisions of Section 156 (3), Criminal P. C. I feel bound to follow these decisions.
( 6 ) MR. Mukherjee has, however, tried to convince us that the view taken in these decisions mentioned above is wrong and that we should refer the matter to the Full Bench.
( 7 ) I have for myself no hesitation in feeling that there is nothing which would justify our referring the matter to the F
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.