On the basis of the first information report, the police undertook investigation, but ultimately they submitted a final report as late as on September 17, 1958.
1 was permitted by the learned Magistrate to appear through companynsel.
1 had fired a shot at Nageswar Singh at point blank range and thereby murdered him.
In addition, Pannalal Saha and Sankar Ghose who, it might be remembered, are alleged to have been the associates of respondent No.
On the same day, he made another report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate saying that numberprima facie case was made out against respondent No.
Chandra Deo Singh preferred an application for revision before the Sessions judge, Alipore, who, after issuing numberice to respondent No.
620 of 59.
Seven witnesses were produced by the companyplainant Chandra Deo Singh and examined by the learned Magistrate.
1 Prokash Chandra Bose who is the proprietor of a fishery had killed a man named Nageswar Singh who was a darwan posted at the informants masters fishery by shooting him with a gun.
After examining Mahendra Singh on oath and looking into the police papers, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate asked Mr. N. M. Chowdhry, Magistrate, First Class, to hold a judicial enquiry into the allegations made by Mahendra Singh and to submit a report to him by a certain date.
1 and hearing his companynsel, directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to make further enquiry against him.
On November 3, 1958, one Mahendra Singh who claimed to be a distant relative of the deceased darwan, but which fact is denied by the widow of the deceased filed a companyplaint before Mr. C. L. Choudhry, the Sub Divisional Magistrate of 24 Parganas Alipore, against the final report of the police and asked for processes to be issued against certain other persons on the allegation that those persons had murdered Nageswar Singh.
at the police station, Bhangor in the.
On the basis of the first report, the SubDivisional Magistrate directed summonses to be issued against the three persons named in that report and companymenced companymittal proceedings against them.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 27, 1960, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
district of 24 Parganas alleging that respondent No.
During the pendency of the enquiry into the companyplaint of Mahendra Singh, Chandra Deo Singh, the nephew of the deceased filed a companyplaint before Mr. Chowdhry on December 30, 1958 stating therein that respondent No.
The learned judge granted the application of respondent No.1 as well as that of Upendra Neogy.
The companyplaint further companytained a statement to the effect that the first information report lodged by Panchanan Roy with the police on December 25, 1957, was false and that he had done so at the instance of his Master Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar who was an enemy of respondent No.
We are informed by learned companynsel for respondent No.1 that eventually two of the three persons against whom summonses were ordered to be issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate were companymitted for trial before the Court of Sessions.
It would appear that the three persons against whom summonses were ordered to issue by the Sub Divisional Magistrate also preferred a revision application before the High Court.
Two of his associates, Pannalal Saha and Sankar Ghosh, were arrested by the local people and produced in the police station.
Jai Gopal Sethi, C. L. Sareen and Y Kumar, for respondent No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The facts which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are briefly these On December 25, 1957, one Panchanan Roy lodged a first information report at I 1.00 p. in.
134 of the Constitution for the grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal to this companyrt which as already stated, was granted by the High Court.
The certificate was sought by the appellant on four grounds.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, I. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Art.
P. C. in dismissing the companyplaint without recording any reason for doing so.
134 1 c of the Constitution of India.
Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant.
Both the revision applications were heard together.
155 of 1960.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate on seeing the second report dismissed the companyplaint of Chandra Deo Singh without assigning any reason.
1 made good his escape in his own car.
1963.January 22.
Thereupon respondent No.
1 preferred a revision application before the High Court, which came up for hearing before a single judge of that companyrt.
The High Court granted the certificate on all the grounds except the first.
After the occurrence, the assailantss party was chased but the principal cul prit namely respondent No.
1, were examined as companyrt witnesses and the suggestion is that the learned Magistrate did this at the instance of the companynsel for respondent No.
On February 9, 1959, Mr. N. M. Choudhry made a report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to the effect that a prima facie case has been made out against three persons, Upendra Neogi, Asim Mondal and Arun Mondal under s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
After examining him on oath, the Sub Divisional Magistrate referred the matter again to Mr. N. M. Chaudhry Magistrate, First Class, for enquiry and report to him by a certain date.
During this enquiry, respondent No.
