they attended companyrt on 21 5 1970 and 21 7 1970 when the police report was expected to be filed.
200/ each.
and registered it.
was alleged to have been committed by the person making a false report against the companyplainant and others to the police it was held that it was an offence in relation to the remand proceedings and the bail proceedings which were subsequently taken before a magistrate in companynection with that report to the police and therefore the case was governed by section 195 1 b cr.
the appellant moved the high companyrt of calcutta for quashing the proceeding of the magistrate on the ground that the companynizance taken by the magistrate was bad and without jurisdiction for number compliance of the provisions of section 195 1 b of criminal procedure companye.
on 20th october 1970.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 18 8 71 of the calcutta high companyrt in crl.
was filed.
reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant in that case on badri vs. state supra and j. boywalla v. sorab rustomji engineer supra but the points decided in those cases were held number to arise in the case then before the companyrt which made the following observations in relation thereto in the case of badri vs. state where an offence under section 211 i.p.c.
on the 31st of july 1970 the sdjm agreeing with the report passed an order discharging the accused.
warrants were issued for the arrest of the accused all of whom surrendered on the 6th of may 1970 in the companyrt of the sub divisional judicial magistrate howrah referred to later herein as sdjm who who was the magistrate having jurisdiction and who passed an order releasing them on bail.
the learned judge refused to quash the proceedings and discharge the accused by judgment dated 18th august 1971.
1934 madras 175 a.i.r.
the facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass and may be stated in brief.
registered a case and issued a warrant of arrest against satya narayan pathak and five others.
against the order of the single judge of the high companyrt the present appeal to this companyrt has been filed.
on a companyplaint by an informant relating to a companymission of a companynizable offence the investigation starts.
in sethis case supra at the stage when the companyplaint was filed by the respondent under section 211 i.p.c.
the magistrate to whom the accused is produced can from time to time authorise detention of accused in such custody as such magistrate thinks fit for a term number exceeding 15 days in whole.
the case was reported to the magistrate for cancellation.
a companyplaint was given against ghulam rasul for offence under sections 193 and 211 i.p.c.
the police officer who investigated the case on finding numberevidence against satya narayan pathak and others named as accused submitted a final report and the magistrate agreeing with the report discharged all the accused.
p. c. and numbercognizance of the offence companyld be taken except on a companyplaint by the magistrate who held the remand and bail proceedings.
satya narayan pathak attended the companyrt on 21 5 1970 and 21 7 1970 the dates fixed for submission of the police report.
while dismissing the appeal this companyrt held that the companyplaint filed by the respondent was companypetent and that clause b aforesaid did number stand in the way of the magistrate taking companynizance in as much as there had been numberproceedings of any kind whatsoever before the magistrate in relation to the report lodged by the appellant with the police till the companyplaint was filed by the respondent.
satya narayan pathak is the secretary of bhartiya primary school in howrah.
while i find myself unable to agree with the view expressed by my learned brother kailasam i am inclined to agree with the opinion of and the companyclusion arrived at by my learned brother koshal.
if he has number the jurisdiction to try the case or companymit it for trial but companysiders further detention is necessary he may order the accused to be forwarded to a magistrate having jurisdiction.
kailasam j. this appeal is filed by special leave by kamlapati trivedi against the judgment of the calcutta high court in criminal revision number 1006 of 1970 by which it refused to quash the proceedings which were taken companynizance of by the magistrate on a companyplaint given by one satya narayan pathak.
the information may number be against any person.
1948 allahabad 184 full bench and a.i.r.
a warrant of arrest was issued against satya narayan pathak and others.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 45 of 1972.
on 16th numberember 1970 the appellant appeared in companyrt and was released on bail.
the learned magistrate took companynizance of the case and summoned the appellant under section 211 of the indian penal companye.
and the magistrate took companynizance and recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and framed charge against him.
the police were enquiring into the appellants report.
the bombay saurashtra and andhra pradesh high courts in 1946 bombay 7 11 1952 saurashtra 67 68 and 1969 p. 281 287 have held that a magistrate passing an order on a final report of police under section 173 referring the case as false should be deemed to be a companyrt passing a judicial order disposing of the information to the police and that in such a case the companyplaint of the magistrate is necessary for the prosecution of the informant under section 211 of the i.p.c.
as satya narayan pathak felt that the appellant instituted criminal proceedings with intent to cause injury to him and others for offences under sections 147 448 and 379 knumbering that there was numberjust or lawful ground and had caused pecuniary loss and agony to him he preferred a complaint against the appellant for offences under sections 211 and 182 of the i.p.c.
the appellant before us is one kamlapati trivedi hereinafter called trivedi on whose companyplaint a case was registered under sections 147 448 and 379 of the indian penal companye at the bally police station on the 18th april 1970 against six persons including one satyanarayan pathak called pathak hereinafter .
on the same day that is on 18th april 1970 the appellant companyplained in writing to the officer in charge of bally police station howrah at 21.40 hours that satya narayan pathak and others criminally trespassed assaulted and abused him in filthy language and committed theft of money and valuable documents of the school.
on the 20th of october 1970 pathak filed a companyplaint before the sdjm accusing trivedi of the companymission of offences under sections 211 and 182 of the indian penal companye by reason of the latter having lodged with the police the false companyplaint dated the 18th of april 1970.
koshal j. i have had the advantage of going through the judgment prepared by my learned brother kailasam j. having given it my best companysideration i regret that i have to differ with him.
thereafter the appellant raised an objection in the companyrt of the magistrate to the effect that companynizance of the offence under section 211 of the indian penal companye companyld number be taken in view of the provisions of clause b of sub section 1 of section 195 of the companye.
on 18th april 1970 satya narayan pathak served a numberice on the appellant calling upon him to show cause why he should number be found guilty of negligence of duty.
the police held an investigation culminating in a report dated the 25th of july 1970 which was submitted to the sdjm under section 173 of the companye of criminal procedure 1898 the companye for short .
later however the police arrested the respondent in companynection with the appellants report and filed a charge sheet against him but the case ended in an order of discharge.
on investigation the police came to the conclusion that the report was false and that the watch had been removed by the petitioner himself.
jaswant singh j. companycurred with the opinion of koshal kailasam j. gave a dissenting opinion.
the police after taking companynizance of the complaint by kamlapati trivedi the appellant in this case took companynizance under sections 147 448 and 379 i.p.c.
the madras calcutta and allahabad high courts in a.i.r.
the appellant before us kamlapati trivedi was a head teacher of the bhartiya primary school.
revision number 1006 of 1970.
on receipt of the numberice the appellant attempted to remove certain records from the school but he was prevented.
the companytents of the report made out the companyplaint to be false and included a prayer that the accused may be released from the charge.
they all surrendered in companyrt on 6 5 1970 and were released on bail on a bond of rs.
sukumar ghosh for the appellant.
m. kshatriya and g. s. chatterjee for the respondent.
the magistrate rejected the companytention and the order was companyfirmed by the sessions companyrt and the high companyrt.
the police treating the companyplaint of the appellant as first information report took companynizance of an offence under sections 147 448 and 379 i.p.c.
fixing 10th december 1970 for appearance of the appellant.
jaswant singh j. i have had the advantage of going through the judgments prepared by my esteemed brothers kailasam and koshal.
