Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.

Calcutta High Court
Kuldip Sahai vs Budhan Mahton on 3 December, 1901
Equivalent citations: (1902) ILR 29 Cal 410
Author: P A Stephen
Bench: Prinsep, Stephen


Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.

1. In this case there appears to have been a police investigation and a report made, so far as we can learn, to the effect that the case had been proved and the Subdivisional Magistrate thereupon directed the case to be entered as true, recording the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, but he declined to order a judicial inquiry, because in his opinion there was no chance of a conviction and it would not serve any useful purpose. This order was passed notwithstanding a petition made by the complainant to the Subdivisional Magistrate. The complainant then petitioned the District Magistrate, and on this a judicial inquiry was ordered to be held by the Subordinate Magistrate. On receipt of the report of the Subordinate Magistrate, the District Magistrate recorded that in his opinion it was hopeless to call for an A Form, that is, to consider the evidence tendered by the complainant, the Subdivisions Magistrate had already passed final orders in the case, namely, “enter true.” It seems to us that the complainant has not had what ho is entitled to ask for–a trial before the Magistrate. He has had an informal inquiry; and although his complaint has been recorded as true, the District Magistrate has never examined him or heard what he had to say, and has never given him an opportunity of tendering the evidence of his witnesses. We think, therefore, that the complainant is entitled to be examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and as his complaint has already been recorded as true, he is entitled to a process against the accused and for the attendance of his witnesses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.185 seconds.