JUDGMENT
George Knox, J.
1. On the 30th of January 1920 Musammat Shama, who describes herself as the wife of Tara Chand and daughter of Joti Prasad Bania, presented a petition to the Collector and Magistrate of Badaun. The language in which the petition is couched shows that it cannot be the production of Musammat Shama who, it is admitted, is a young woman some sixteen years of age. A glance shows that even if the subject-matter of it had any foundation in the statement made by Musammat Shama herself, it has been added to and embellished by some person other than Musammat Shama. The Magistrate of Badaun, before whom this petition was presented, took the statement of Musammat Shama on oath then and there, but it is unfortunate that he did not take that statement in further detail The subject-matter of the statement was that Musammat Shama was carried from the house in which she was living with her husband to the village of Sakhamai and there kept under confinement for some two days ; that the Darogha of Islamnagar went there and dishonoured and ravished Musammat Shama in the same village of Sakhamai; that from Sakhamai she was taken to Islamnagar and kept in the house of the Darogha of Islamnagar and ravished a second time; that while there her father arrived and she was made over to her father. The manifest and patent want of detail in this complaint should have been then and there made complete by the examination made under the direction of the Magistrate of Badaun. Had this been done, I feel sure that much of the difficulties which have crept into the ease would have been set at rest. The Magistrate must have known that the complaint presented by Musammat Shama was not her plain unvarnished statement and should not have contented himself with eliciting from her that the facts stated by her in the petition, Exhibit A, are all true. One question more was asked of her and that was, “who is your witness who supports the statement made by you in your petitior?” her answer was, “Baldeo Sahai, who is present in Court to day and who has come with me.” A few details follow but they are of far less importance than the main facts stated in the complaint, Exhibit A, Baldeo Sahai was examined apparently on the same date and at the same time. He stated that he had not seen any of the matters complained of; that what he knew about it came from Shama’s mouth, that he drew up the complaint, took it and got it typed and brought it to Badaun. I have not seen Baldeo Sahai, but I venture very much to doubt whether Baldeo Sahai was capable of drawing up this complaint. As it runs, the complaint is far above the style and language of an ordinary petition writer of Bareilly, and the brain and tongue that went to the composing of this complaint (sic) reads as an emanation from a brain of far a higher caliber than of Baldeo Sahai or Mussmmat Shama. As will be seen from my order, I am not attempting to say anything or to make any statement about the truth or the r6veree of truth of what is stated in this complaint, but I repeat again that the District Magistrate of Badaun cannot be commended for the way in which he dealt with it. The examination of Musammat Shama in a grave matter like this should have been very full and complete, and we ought to have had exactly what Musammat Shama had in her own language to say about the outrages which she said were practiced upon her. After recording the examination of Musammat Shama and of Baldeo Sahai the Magistrate pent this complaint to the Superintendent of Police to have an enquiry made into this case by himself or by his Deputy Superintendent in view of the serious allegations made against the Sub-Inspector. This is exactly the procedure that he should not have adopted. The procedure laid down in snob eases, as the District Magistrate must know, is set out in the Manual of Government Orders, paragraph 845. The intention of that paragraph, and a very proper intention it is, is that complaints making criminal charges against Police Officers should be. handled with the greatest care. The person to investigate, if investigation is necessary in a matter of this kind, is the Magistrate. He is to take the evidence himself at the earliest date possible, give the complainant every facility to prove his charge, but if the complaint fails, prosecution should follow with certainty and speed if there is a real likelihood of conviction.
2. A complaint of a serious nature made by Musammat Shama should have been investigated and the investigation conducted to the uttermost extent. If true, and in this case it may be true, it ought to be followed up to the end without delay. In the present case we have already had months occupied and we have not come to the end. If false, I do not say at all that they are false in the present case, but if false, the investigation should he quite as speedy and as prompt. They are cot complaints to be dealt with under sections 202 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless the Magistrate’s investigation shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaints made are false. I set aside the order passed in the present case and direct that this complaint of Musammat Shama’s be dealt with by the District Magistrate of Badaun himself and without further delay. Many witnesses have been mentioned by Musammat Shama and I have no doubt that many witnesses will be mentioned by Ejaz Ahmad, Sub Inspector. Both, sides, the complaint and its answer, must be fully and thoroughly enquired into and dealt with according to law.