1961 (11) TMI 63 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of a second complaint after dismissal of the first complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Jurisdiction of the Special Bench constituted by the Chief Justice.
3. Requirement of sanction under Section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking cognizance of the offense.
4. Prima facie evidence against the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of a Second Complaint:
The principal question was whether a Magistrate could entertain a second complaint after dismissing a previous complaint on the same or similar allegations. The court recognized that while there is no legal bar to filing a second complaint, it should only be entertained in exceptional circumstances. These include:
- Manifest error or miscarriage of justice in the previous order.
- Discovery of new facts that could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence.

The first complaint by Promode Ranjan Sarkar was dismissed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Mr. N.C. Chakraborti, on August 6, 1954. The dismissal was upheld by Debabrata Mookerjee, J., who found no sufficient ground for proceeding. The second complaint by Saroj Ranjan Sarkar was entertained by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Mr. Bijoyesh Mukherjee, who found prima facie evidence of forgery based on new evidence regarding the telephone number "City 6091" on the minutes of the proceedings dated January 16, 1948.

The Special Bench held that the second complaint was justified due to the new evidence and the manifest error in the previous dismissal, which failed to consider crucial evidence.

2. Jurisdiction of the Special Bench:
The objection was raised about the legality of the Special Bench constituted by the Chief Justice to hear the revision applications. The court held that the Chief Justice has inherent power to constitute a larger Bench in special circumstances, even in criminal matters. This was supported by the rules of the High Court at Calcutta, which allow the Chief Justice to appoint special benches for hearing particular cases or questions of law.

3. Requirement of Sanction under Section 196A:
The appellants argued that the Chief Presidency Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses without the necessary sanction under Section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Special Bench clarified that the Chief Presidency Magistrate took cognizance of the offense of abetment of forgery under Sections 467 and 471 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, for which no sanction under Section 196A was required. The court distinguished between the offense of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B and abetment by conspiracy under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Prima Facie Evidence Against the Accused:
The Chief Presidency Magistrate, Mr. Bijoyesh Mukherjee, found prima facie evidence of forgery in the minutes of the proceedings dated January 16, 1948, and the unregistered deed of agreement dated January 19, 1948. The Special Bench agreed with this finding, noting that the new evidence regarding the telephone number "City 6091" was significant and had not been considered in the first complaint.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, in a divided judgment, ultimately allowed the appeals, setting aside the order of the High Court and the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and dismissed the complaint. The majority opinion held that the second complaint was an abuse of the process of the court and was not in the interest of justice. The dissenting opinion, however, found that the second complaint served the interests of justice and should be entertained due to the exceptional circumstances and new evidence presented.