The learned Magistrate also found that the raid was carried out by the 3 police officers under the supervision of Shri J. C. Das, the Executive Magistrate.
The evidence further shows that proper lists regarding search and seizure were made and companyies thereof were given to Nagendra.
He also found that search and seizure lists were prepared and companyies thereof were given to Nagendra Kumar, brother in law of the companyplainant who was present at the time of the raid.
1998 3 SCR 201 The Judgment was delivered by G. T. NANAVATI, J. T. NANAVATI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No.
After companysidering the evidence thus gathered, the learned Magistrate held that there is numberevidence to show that there was an assault on his wife or that Respondents 2 to 4 had misbehaved with her or any other person in the house.
Therein it is stated that Respondent 3 has died during the pendency of this appeal What is companytended by the learned companynsel for the State is that the High Court companymitted an error of law in holding that the learned Magistrate was required to companysider only the allegations made in the companyplaint and numberother material.
The High Court allowed the revision application and directed the Magistrate to hold further inquiry in accordance with law.
Respondents 2 and 4 have filed an application for transposing them as appellants.
It appeared to the learned Magistrate that the acts alleged to have been companymitted by Respondents 2 to 4 were done under the companyour of their office and while discharging their official duty.
799 of 1982 Respondent 1 Kamla Prasad Singh has filed a companyplaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging that on 30 3 1982, a police party headed by Respondent 2 raided his house without obtaining any warrant of search and while carrying out the search, Respondents 2 to 4 assaulted his wife, abused her and other persons present in the house and took away certain articles belonging to him.
Thus Respondents 2 to 4 have companymitted offences punishable under Sections 451, 452, 453, 456, 457, 458, 380, 334, 426 and 120 B IPC The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the companyplainant felt some doubt about the companyrectness of his version and, therefore, decided to hold an inquiry under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code.
Pursuant to the decision of the High Court, the learned Magistrate on 22 8 1987, took companynizance of the offences and directed issuance of process against Respondents 2 to 4 The State has filed this appeal against the order passed by the High Court.
The companyplainant refused to examine Shri J. C. Das, Executive Magistrate who was also present when the raid was carried out.
During the inquiry the companyplainant, his wife and his two brothers in law who were stated to be present at the time of the incident, were examined.
No companyplaint of any type was made by anyone to Shri J. C. Das who was supervising the acts of Respondents 2 to 4.
