1953 (4) TMI 21 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint under sections 297 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Applicability of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Distinctness of offences under sections 182, 297, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Validity of the Full Bench decision and its implications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint under sections 297 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code:
The appellants were tried and convicted under sections 297 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code by the Magistrate. The charges framed were for trespassing on the cremation ground with the intention of wounding religious feelings (section 297) and defamation (section 500). The appellants contended that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of these offences as the facts disclosed an offence under section 182, which requires a complaint by a public servant. However, the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under sections 297 and 500 as they were distinct offences not covered by section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Applicability of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of offences under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint of the concerned public servant. The appellants argued that the facts constituted an offence under section 182, and thus, the Magistrate was debarred from taking cognizance of the other offences. The Supreme Court clarified that section 195 does not bar the cognizance of distinct offences disclosed by the same facts. The court emphasized that the allegations may have a double aspect and can constitute separate offences, one against the public servant and another against a private individual.

3. Distinctness of offences under sections 182, 297, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code:
The Supreme Court observed that the charge under section 297 related to an act of trespass committed after the false report, and the charge under section 500 related to defamatory allegations in the report itself. The court held that the offence under section 297 was distinct and arose from different facts, namely, the trespass and removal of the corpse from the funeral pyre. The court also held that the offence under section 500 could be prosecuted independently of the offence under section 182, as they were fundamentally distinct in nature. The court cited precedents, including Satish Chandra Chakravarti v. Ram Dayal De and a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, to support this view.

4. Validity of the Full Bench decision and its implications:
The Full Bench of the High Court had answered in the negative the question of whether the Magistrate was debarred from taking cognizance of other offences disclosed by the facts alleged, which were not affected by section 195. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the provisions of section 195 cannot be evaded by misdescribing the offence or by changing its label. The court also referred to the Federal Court decision in Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown, which supported the view that distinct offences could be tried separately even if one required special sanction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under sections 297 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The court affirmed that section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the prosecution of distinct offences arising from the same facts, provided the prescribed procedure for each offence is followed. The court also upheld the findings of the lower courts that the ingredients of the offences under sections 297 and 500 were fully established.