{"id":173387,"date":"1980-10-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-10-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980"},"modified":"2016-12-18T19:46:44","modified_gmt":"2016-12-18T14:16:44","slug":"h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980","title":{"rendered":"H. S. Bains Director Small … vs The State (Union Territory Of … on 10 October, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
H. S. Bains Director Small … vs The State (Union Territory Of … on 10 October, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1883, \t\t 1981 SCR (1) 935<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nH. S. BAINS DIRECTOR SMALL SAVING-CUM-DEPUTY SECRETARY,FINAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE (UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/10\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR 1883\t\t  1981 SCR  (1) 935\n 1980 SCC  (4) 631\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1981 SC 877\t (20)\n E&F\t    1989 SC 885\t (14)\n\n\nACT:\n     Code of  Criminal Procedure  1898-Section 190(1)(b) and\n(c)-Scope of-Magistrate\t ordered investigation under section\n156(3)-Police submitted report under section 173-Disagreeing\nwith police  report Magistrate\tdirected issue\tof  process-\nMagistrate if  competent to  take  cognizance  of  complaint\nunder section 190(1)(b).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     On a  complaint by\t the complainant that the appellant,\narmed with  a  revolver\t and  accompanied  by  two  persons,\ntrespassed into\t his house  and threatened  to kill him, the\nMagistrate ordered investigation by the police under section\n156(3) of  the Code  of Criminal  Procedure. In their report\nunder section  173 the\tpolice stated that the complaint was\nfalse in  that on  the date  and time mentioned therein, the\nappellant was  at a  different place far away from the place\nwhere  the   complainant  alleged  that\t the  appellant\t had\nthreatened to  kill him.  Disagreeing with the conclusion of\nthe police  the Magistrate took cognizance of the case under\nsections 448,  451 and\t506 I.P.C. and directed the issue of\nprocess to  the appellant.  The appellant's petition seeking\nto quash the proceedings before the Magistrate was dismissed\nby the High Court.\n     In appeal\tto this Court, it was contended on behalf of\nthe appellant  that the Magistrate was not competent to take\ncognizance of  the case\t as if\tit was\tupon a police report\nsince the  report under\t section 173  by the  police did not\ndisclose any offence having been committed by the appellant.\n     Dismissing the appeal\n^\n     HELD: Where  the Magistrate,  on receiving\t a complaint\norders investigation  under section  156(3) and\t receives  a\nreport under  section 173  to the effect that no offence was\ndisclosed against  the accused,\t the Magistrate might either\n(i) decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding\nfurther and  drop action  or (ii)  he may take cognizance of\nthe  offence  under  section  190(1)(b)\t and  issue  process\nwithout being  bound in\t any manner by the conclusion of the\npolice or  (iii) he may take cognizance of the offence under\nsection 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and\nproceed\t to  examine  upon  oath  the  complainant  and\t his\nwitnesses  under   section  200.  If  he  adopts  the  third\nalternative, he\t may hold or direct an enquiry under section\n202  if\t he  thinks  fit.  Thereafter  he  may\tdismiss\t the\ncomplaint or issue process as the case may be. [940E-G]\n     In\t any  event,  it  is  impossible  to  say  that\t the\nMagistrate, who\t takes cognizance of an offence on the basis\nof the facts disclosed in the police report,\n936\nmust be\t said to  have taken  cognizance of  the offence \"on\nsuspicion\" and not upon police report, merely because he and\nthe police  arrived at different conclusions from the facts.\nThe Magistrate\tis not\tbound  by  the\tconclusions  of\t the\npolice: if he ignores their conclusions and takes cognizance\nof the\toffence himself, he does so upon the facts disclosed\nby the\tpolice report  though not on the conclusions arrived\nat by  them. In\t such a\t case, it cannot be said that he was\ntaking cognizance \"on suspicion\". [942E-H]\n     In Abhinandan  Jha & ors. v. Dinesh Mishra<\/a> [1967] 3 SCR\n668, where  this Court stated that the Magistrate could take\ncognizance  of\t the   offence\t under\t section   190(1)(c)\nnotwithstanding the  contrary opinion  of  the\tpolice,\t the\nreference to  sub-clause (c)  therein was a mistake for sub-\nclause (b). The argument of the appellant that the Court, in\nthis case, had apparently taken the view that the Magistrate\ncould take  cognizance of  the offence not under section 190\n(1)(b) as  if it  was a\t police\t report\t but  under  section\n190(1)(c) as  if it  was \"on  suspicion\" is not sustainable,\nbecause section\t 190(1)(c) was\tnever intended\tto apply  to\ncases where  there was a police report under section 173(1).\n[942C-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n687 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 18-4-1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.
\nMisc. No. 26-M\/1980.\n<\/p>\n
     Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Mrs. Shobha Dixit and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.-On August 13, 1979, Gurnam Singh a
\nresident of Chandigarh submitted a complaint to the Judicial
\nMagistrate 1st Class Chandigarh, alleging that the appellant
\nH. S. Bains accompanied by two persons had come to his house
\nin a car on the morning of August 11, 1979, at about 8 a.m.,
\ntress-passed into  the house  and threatened to kill him and
\nhis natural son if he did not take away his natural son Aman
\nDeep Singh  from the  house of his sister Bakshish Kaur, who
\nhad taken the boy in adoption as she was issueless. Bakshish
\nKaur was  the widow  of the brother of the appellant and the
\nadoption made  by Bakshish Kaur was not to the liking of the
\nappellant.  It\t was  alleged  in  the\tcomplaint  that\t the
\nappellant was  armed with a revolver which he pointed at the
\ncomplainant. The  complainant raised  a\t hue  and  cry.\t The
\naccused and his companions fled away in their car. As August
\n11, 1979  and August  12, 1979 were holidays, he was able to
\nfile the  complaint only  on 13th  August, 1979. The learned
\nMagistrate to  whom the\t complaint was\tsubmitted ordered an
\ninvestigation by the police under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of
\nCriminal  Procedure.   The  police   after  completing\t the
\ninvestigation,
\n937<\/span>
\nsubmitted a  report to\tthe Magistrate under Sec. 173 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure stating that the case against the
\nappellant was  not true\t and that  it might  be dropped. The
\npolice arrived\tat the\tconclusion that the case against the
\nappellant was  not true\t as  their  investigation  revealed,
\naccording to  them, that  the appellant was at Amritsar with
\nShri Jai Singh, District Magistrate of Amritsar at 9 a.m. on
\nAugust 11, 1979 and it was, therefore, impossible for him to
\nhave been  at Chandigarh  at 8\ta.m. on August 11, 1979. The
\nlearned Magistrate  after perusing  the report\tsubmitted by
\nthe police  disagreed with  the conclusion  of police,\ttook
\ncognizance of  the case\t under Sections\t 448, 451 and 506 of
\nthe Indian  Penal Code\tand directed the issue of process to
\nthe appellant.\tAggrieved  by  the  issue  of  process,\t the
\nappellant filed\t Criminal Miscellaneous\t Case  No.  26-M  of
\n1980, in  the High  Court of Punjab and Haryana to quash the
\nproceedings  before  the  Magistrate.  The  application\t was
\ndismissed by  the High\tCourt  and  the\t appellant  filed  a
\npetition for  the grant\t of special  leave to appeal against
\nthe order  of the  High Court.\tWe granted Special Leave and
\nstraightaway heard  the\t appeal\t with  the  consent  of\t the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Kapil\t Sibal urged  that the Magistrate had issued
\nprocess to  the accused\t without recording the statement, on
\noath, of  the complainant  and the  witnesses under Sec. 200
\nCriminal Procedure  Code and  therefore, he must be taken to
\nhave taken  cognizance of  the case under Sec. 190(1)(b), as
\nif upon\t a police  report. Shri\t Sibal\tsubmitted  that\t the
\nMagistrate was\tnot competent to take cognizance of the case
\nas if  it was  upon a police report as the report under Sec.
\n173 Criminal  Procedure Code submitted to him disclosed that
\nno offence  had been  committed by the accused. According to
\nShri  Sibal,   in  the\t circumstances\tof   the  case,\t the
\nMagistrate, on receipt of the report under Sec. 173 Criminal
\nProcedure Code\tto the\teffect that  the  case\tagainst\t the
\naccused was  not proved, had only two options before him. He
\ncould either  order a further investigation or he could take
\ncognizance of  the case\t as if\tupon a complaint, record the
\nstatements of  the complainant\tand witnesses under Sec. 200
\nCriminal Procedure Code and then proceed to issue process if
\nhe was\tsatisfied that\tprocess ought  to be  issued. In any
\ncase Shri  Sibal submitted  that the  order of the Ist Class
\nMagistrate taking  cognizance of  the case was so unjudicial
\nthat it\t ought to  be struck  down. Shri  Sibal invited\t our
\nattention to  two decisions  of this Court: Abhinandan Jha &
\nOrs. v. Dinesh Mishra<\/a>; and Tula Ram & Ors. v. Kishore Singh.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
938<\/span><\/p>\n
     Chapter XII  of the  Code of  Criminal  Procedure\t1973
\ndeals with  information to  the Police,\t and their powers to
\ninvestigate. Sec.  156 (1) vests in an officer incharge of a
\nPolice Station the power to investigate any cognizable case,
\nwithout the  order of a Magistrate. Sec. 156(3) authorises a
\nMagistrate,  empowered\t under\tSec.   190,  to\t  order\t  an
\ninvestigation as  mentioned in\tSec. 156(1).  The provisions
\nfrom Sec.  157 onwards\tare concerned  with  the  power\t and
\nprocedure for  investigation. Sec.  169 prescribes  that  if
\nupon an\t investigation it appears to the officer incharge of
\nthe Police  Station that  there is no sufficient evidence or
\nreasonable ground  of suspicion to justify the forwarding of
\nthe accused  to a  Magistrate, such  officer shall,  if such
\nperson is  in custody,\trelease him  on his executing a bond
\n(with or  without sureties)  to appear if and when required,
\nbefore a  Magistrate empowered\tto  take  cognizance  of  an
\noffence on  a police report and to try the accused or commit
\nhim  for   trial.  Sec.\t  170  prescribes   that   if\tupon
\ninvestigation it  appears to  the officer  incharge  of\t the
\nPolice\tStation\t  that\tthere\tis  sufficient\tevidence  or
\nreasonable ground  of suspicion to justify the forwarding of
\nthe accused  to a Magistrate, such officer shall forward the
\naccused under  custody to  a Magistrate\t empowered  to\ttake
\ncognizance of  an offence  on a police report and to try the
\naccused or  commit him for trial. If the offence is bailable
\nthe officer  shall take security from him for his appearance
\nbefore such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance
\nfrom day  to day  before  such\tMagistrate  until  otherwise
\ndirected. Sec.\t173(1) casts  a duty upon the police officer
\nto complete  the investigation\twithout\t unnecessary  delay.
\nSec. 173(2)  prescribes that as soon as the investigation is
\ncompleted the  officer incharge\t of the police station shall
\nforward to  a Magistrate  empowered to take cognizance of an
\noffence on  a police report, a report in the prescribed form
\nstating the  various  particulars  mentioned  in  that\tsub-
\nsection.\n<\/p>\n
     Sec. 190(1)  which\t occurs\t in  Chap.  XIV\t (Conditions
\nrequisite for initiation of proceedings) may be extracted at
\nthis stage. It is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “190(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter,
\n     any Magistrate  of the  first class, and any Magistrate
\n     of the  second class specially empowered in this behalf
\n     under sub-section\t(2),  may  take\t cognizance  of\t any
\n     offence-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
\n\t  constitute such offence;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b) upon a police report of such facts;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
939<\/span><\/p>\n
\t       (c) upon information received from any person
\n\t  other than  a police\tofficer,  or  upon  his\t own
\n\t  knowledge, that such offence has been committed”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
What has been extracted is Sec. 190 as it stands at present.
\nSec. 190 of the previous Code was slightly different. Clause
\n(1)(b) read  as “upon a report in writing of such facts made
\nby any\tpolice-officer”. In  clause (1)(c)  after  the\tword
\n‘knowledge’, the  words ‘or  suspicion’ occurred,  and these
\nwords have now been omitted.\n<\/p>\n
     Chapter XV (Sections 200 to 203) of the Code deals with
\n“complaints to\tMagistrates”. A Magistrate taking cognizance
\nof an  offence on  complaint is\t required  by  Sec.  200  to
\nexamine the  complainant and  the witnesses present, if any.
\nSec. 202  provides that\t a Magistrate taking cognizance of a
\ncase upon  complaint, may,  if he  thinks fit,\tpostpone the
\nissue of  process against  the accused,\t and either  inquire
\ninto the  case himself or direct an investigation to be made
\nby a  police officer  or by  such other\t person as he thinks
\nfit, for  the purpose  of deciding  whether or\tnot there is
\nsufficient ground  for proceeding.  Sec.  203  empowers\t the
\nMagistrate to  dismiss the  complaint, if, after considering
\nthe statements\ton oath\t (if any)  of the complainant and of
\nthe witnesses and the result of the enquiry or investigation
\n(if any)  under Sec.  202, the\tMagistrate is of the opinion
\nthat there  is no  sufficient ground for proceeding. Chapter
\nXVI  deals   with  “commencement   of\tproceedings   before
\nMagistrate” and\t Sec. 204  enables  a  Magistrate  to  issue
\nsummons or  a warrant  as the  case may\t be  to\t secure\t the
\nattendance  of\t the  accused  if  in  the  opinion  of\t the
\nMagistrate  taking   cognizance\t of  the  offence  there  is
\nsufficient ground for proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  seen  from\tthe  provisions\t to  which  we\thave
\nreferred in  the preceding  paragraphs that  on receipt of a
\ncomplaint a  Magistrate has  several courses open to him. He
\nmay take cognizance of the offence and proceed to record the
\nstatements of  the complainant\tand  the  witnesses  present
\nunder Sec.  200. Thereafter,  if in  his opinion there is no
\nsufficient  ground   for  proceeding   he  may\tdismiss\t the
\ncomplaint under\t Sec.  203.  If\t in  his  opinion  there  is
\nsufficient ground  for proceeding he may issue process under
\nSec. 204.  However, if\the thinks  fit, he  may postpone the
\nissue of process and either enquire into the case himself or
\ndirect an  investigation to  be made  by a Police Officer or
\nsuch other  person as  he thinks  fit  for  the\t purpose  of
\ndeciding whether  or not  there\t is  sufficient\t ground\t for
\nproceeding. He\tmay then  issue process\t if in\this  opinion
\nthere is  sufficient ground  for proceeding  or dismiss\t the
\ncomplaint if  there is\tno sufficient ground for proceeding.
\nOn the other hand, in the first instance, on receipt
\n940<\/span>
\nof a  complaint,  the  Magistrate  may,\t instead  of  taking
\ncognizance of the offence, order an investigation under Sec.
\n156(3). The police will then investigate and submit a report
\nunder Sec.  173(1).  On\t receiving  the\t police\t report\t the
\nMagistrate may\ttake cognizance\t of the\t offence under\tSec.
\n190(1)(b) and  straightaway issue  process. This  he may  do
\nirrespective of\t the view  expressed by\t the police in their
\nreport whether\tan offence  has been  made out\tor not.\t The
\nPolice\treport\t under\tSec.  173  will\t contain  the  facts
\ndiscovered or  unearthed by  the police\t and the  conclusion
\ndrawn by  the police  therefrom. The Magistrate is not bound
\nby the\tconclusions drawn by the Police and he may decide to
\nissue process  even if the Police recommend that there is no
\nsufficient ground  for proceeding  further.  The  Magistrate
\nafter receiving\t the Police  report,  may,  without  issuing
\nprocess or dropping the proceeding decide to take cognizance
\nof the\toffence on  the basis  of the  complaint  originally
\nsubmitted to  him and  proceed to record the statements upon
\noath of the complainant and the witnesses present under Sec.
\n200 Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decide whether to
\ndismiss the  complaint or  issue process. The mere fact that
\nhe had\tearlier ordered\t an investigation  under Sec. 156(3)
\nand received  a report\tunder Sec.  173 will  not  have\t the
\neffect of  total effacement  of the  complaint and therefore
\nthe Magistrate\twill not  be barred  from  proceeding  under
\nSections 200, 203 and 204. Thus, a Magistrate who on receipt
\nof a  complaint, orders\t an investigation  under Sec. 156(3)
\nand  receives  a  police  report  under\t Sec.  173(1),\tmay,
\nthereafter, do\tone of\tthree things: (1) he may decide that
\nthere is  no sufficient\t ground for  proceeding further\t and
\ndrop action; (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under
\nSec. 190(1)(b)\ton the\tbasis of the police report and issue
\nprocess; this he may do without being bound in any manner by
\nthe conclusion arrived at by the police in their report: (3)
\nhe may\ttake cognizance\t of the offence under Sec. 190(1)(a)
\non the\tbasis of  the  original\t complaint  and\t proceed  to
\nexamine upon  oath the\tcomplainant and\t his witnesses under
\nSec. 200  If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or
\ndirect\tan   inquiry  under  Sec.  202\tif  he\tthinks\tfit.
\nThereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as
\nthe case may be.\n<\/p>\n
     In Abhinandan  Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra,<\/a> (supra) the
\nquestion arose\twhether a  Magistrate to whom a report under
\nSec. 173(1)  had been  submitted to  the effect that no case
\nhad been  made out  against the\t accused, could\t direct\t the
\npolice to  file a  charge-sheet, on his disagreeing with the
\nreport submitted  by the  Police. This\tCourt held  that the
\nMagistrate had\tno jurisdiction\t to  direct  the  police  to
\nsubmit a  charge-sheet. It  was open  to the  Magistrate  to
\nagree or
\n941<\/span>
\ndisagree with  the police  report. If  he  agreed  with\t the
\nreport that  there was\tno case made out for issuing process
\nto the\taccused, he  might accept  the report  and close the
\nproceedings. If\t he came  to  the  conclusion  that  further
\ninvestigation was  necessary he\t might make an order to that
\neffect under  Sec. 156(3).  If ultimately the Magistrate was
\nof the\topinion that  the facts set out in the police report
\nconstituted an\toffence he  could  take\t cognizance  of\t the
\noffence, notwithstanding  the contrary opinion of the police
\nexpressed in  the report.  While expressing the opinion that
\nthe  Magistrate\t  could\t take\tcognizance  of\tthe  offence
\nnotwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police the Court
\nobserved that  the Magistrate  could take  cognizance  under
\nSec. 190(1)(c)’. We do not have any doubt that the reference
\nto ‘Sec. 190(1)(c)’ was a mistake for ‘Sec. 190(1)(b)’. That
\nappears to be obvious to us. But Shri Kapil Sibal urged that
\nthe reference  was indeed  to Sec.  190(1)(c) since  at that
\ntime Sec.  190(1)(c) included  the words  ‘or suspicion’ and
\nthe Court  had apparently taken the view that the Magistrate
\ncould take  cognizance of  the offence not under Sec. 190(1)\n<\/p>\n
(b) as\tif on a police report but under Sec. 190(1)(c) as if
\non suspicion’.\tWe do  not agree  with this submission. Sec.
\n190(1)(c) was  never intended  to apply to cases where there
\nwas a police report under Sec. 173(1). We find it impossible
\nto say\tthat a Magistrate who takes cognizance of an offence
\non the\tbasis of the facts disclosed in a police report must
\nbe said to have taken cognizance of the offence on suspicion
\nand not\t upon a\t police report merely because the Magistrate
\nand the\t Police arrived\t at different  conclusions from\t the
\nfacts. The  Magistrate\tis  not\t bound\tby  the\t conclusions
\narrived at  by the  police even\t as he\tis not\tbound by the
\nconclusions arrived at by the complainant in a complaint. If
\na complainant states the relevant facts in his complaint and
\nalleges that  the accused is guilty of an offence under Sec.
\n307 Indian  Penal Code\tthe Magistrate\tis not\tbound by the
\nconclusion of  the complainant.\t He may think that the facts
\ndisclose an  offence under  Sec. 324  Indian Penal Code only
\nand he\tmay take  cognizance of\t an offence  under Sec.\t 324
\ninstead of  Sec. 307.  Similarly if a police report mentions
\nthat half  a dozen  persons examined by them claim to be eye
\nwitnesses to  a murder\tbut that  for  various\treasons\t the
\nwitnesses could not be believed, the Magistrate is not bound
\nto  accept   the  opinion   of\tthe   police  regarding\t the
\ncredibility of\tthe witnesses.\tHe  may\t prefer\t ignore\t the
\nconclusions of\tthe police  regarding the credibility of the
\nwitnesses and take cognizance of the offence. If he does so,
\nit would  be on the basis of the statements of the witnesses
\nas revealed  by\t the  police  report.  He  would  be  taking
\ncognizance upon the facts disclosed by the police
\n942<\/span>
\nreport though  not on  the conclusions\tarrived\t at  by\t the
\npolice. It  could not  be said\tin such\t a case\t that he was
\ntaking cognizance on suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
     In Tula  Ram  &  Ors.  v.\tKishore\t Singh<\/a>\t(supra)\t the
\nMagistrate,   on   receiving   a   complaint,\tordered\t  an
\ninvestigation under  Sec. 156(3).  The\tPolice\tsubmitted  a
\nreport indicating that no case had been made out against the
\naccused. The  Court, however, recorded the statements of the
\ncomplainant and the witnesses and issued process against the
\naccused. It  was contended that the Magistrate acted without
\njurisdiction in\t taking cognizance  of the case as if upon a
\ncomplaint when\tthe police  had submitted  a report  that no
\ncase had  been made out against the accused. This Court held
\nthat the  Magistrate acted  within his\tpowers and  observed
\nthat the  complaint did\t not get  exhausted as\tsoon as\t the
\nMagistrate ordered  an investigation  under Sec.  156(3). We
\nare, therefore\tunable to  agree with the submission of Shri
\nSibal that  the Magistrate  acted  without  jurisdiction  in
\ntaking cognizance  of the offence and issuing process to the
\naccused notwithstanding\t the fact that the police report was
\nto the effect that no case had been made out.\n<\/p>\n
     We do not propose to say a word about the merits of the
\ncase  since  it\t was  entirely\ta  matter  for\tthe  learned
\nMagistrate to  take cognizance\tor not to take cognizance of
\nthe several offences. We however wish to observe that it was
\nwholly unnecessary  for the  Magistrate\t to  write  such  an
\nelaborate order\t as if\the was\tweighing  the  evidence\t and
\nfinally disposing  of the  case. We  also desire to say that
\nsome of the observations of the learned Magistrate about the
\nDistrict Magistrate  were wholly  uncalled for as the latter
\nwas yet\t to appear before him as a witness. We are told that
\nthe  case   has\t already  been\ttransferred  to\t some  other
\nMagistrate. It\tis, therefore,\tunnecessary to\tsay anything
\nfurther in the matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
\nP.B.R.\t  Appeal dismissed
\n943<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India H. S. Bains Director Small … vs The State (Union Territory Of … on 10 October, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1883, 1981 SCR (1) 935 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: H. S. BAINS DIRECTOR SMALL SAVING-CUM-DEPUTY SECRETARY,FINAN Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE (UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nH. S. Bains Director Small ... vs The State (Union Territory Of ... on 10 October, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"H. S. Bains Director Small ... vs The State (Union Territory Of ... on 10 October, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1980-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-18T14:16:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"H. S. Bains Director Small … vs The State (Union Territory Of … on 10 October, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T14:16:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2878,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980\",\"name\":\"H. S. Bains Director Small ... vs The State (Union Territory Of ... on 10 October, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T14:16:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"H. S. Bains Director Small … vs The State (Union Territory Of … on 10 October, 1980\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"H. S. Bains Director Small ... vs The State (Union Territory Of ... on 10 October, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"H. S. Bains Director Small ... vs The State (Union Territory Of ... on 10 October, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-18T14:16:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"H. S. Bains Director Small … vs The State (Union Territory Of … on 10 October, 1980","datePublished":"1980-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T14:16:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980"},"wordCount":2878,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980","name":"H. S. Bains Director Small ... vs The State (Union Territory Of ... on 10 October, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T14:16:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-bains-director-small-vs-the-state-union-territory-of-on-10-october-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"H. S. Bains Director Small … vs The State (Union Territory Of … on 10 October, 1980"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=173387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}