1950 (5) TMI 25 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate was bound to take cognizance of the case upon receiving the petition of complaint.
2. Whether the actions of the Chief Presidency Magistrate were legal in sending the case to the police without examining the complainant.
3. Whether the Magistrate's decision to set the accused at liberty was correct.
4. Whether the matter should be referred to the Full Bench for further consideration.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case was whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate was obligated to take cognizance of the case upon receiving the petition of complaint. The court examined conflicting views on this matter, with some judges holding that cognizance must be taken upon receiving the complaint, while others opined that the Magistrate had the discretion to either take cognizance or refer the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The court considered whether the actions of the Chief Presidency Magistrate in sending the case to the police without personally examining the complainant were legal. It was concluded that the Magistrate was not bound to take cognizance immediately upon receiving the complaint, and therefore, his decision to refer the case to the police for investigation was within the scope of the law.

3. Another issue addressed by the court was the correctness of the Magistrate's decision to set the accused at liberty based on the alleged illegal arrest. The court found this decision to be erroneous in law and ordered that the trial should proceed based on the proceedings up to the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate transferring the case to another Magistrate.

4. The court also deliberated on whether the matter should be referred to the Full Bench for further consideration. It was determined that there was no justification for such a referral, as the existing legal provisions and precedents were deemed sufficient to resolve the issues at hand.

Overall, the court ruled in favor of upholding the validity of the proceedings up to the transfer of the case to another Magistrate, and directed that the trial should continue accordingly under the new Magistrate assigned to the case.