1963 (1) TMI 50 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Locus standi of the accused to appear and contest a criminal case before the issue of process.
2. Test for determining whether any process should be issued by the court.
3. Jurisdiction of a Magistrate making an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Compliance with Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding dismissal of a complaint without recording reasons.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of the Accused:

The court examined whether the accused has the right to appear and contest a criminal case before the issue of process. It concluded that an accused person does not come into the picture until the process is issued. The accused can be present to be informed of the proceedings but has no right to take part in them. The Magistrate has no jurisdiction to permit the accused to question witnesses or examine them. The court found that the Magistrate's enquiry was vitiated by allowing the accused's associates to be examined as court witnesses, which was inferred to be at the instance of the accused's counsel.

2. Test for Determining Whether Any Process Should Be Issued:

The court held that the test propounded by the learned single judge of the High Court was erroneous. The Magistrate needs to be satisfied whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. The adequacy of evidence for conviction is to be determined at the trial, not during the enquiry under Section 202. The court emphasized that the enquiry under Section 202 is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint based on the material presented by the complainant.

3. Jurisdiction of a Magistrate Making an Enquiry Under Section 202:

The court clarified that the Magistrate's duty during an enquiry under Section 202 is to scrutinize the allegations in the complaint to prevent frivolous complaints and to determine if there is material to support the allegations. The Magistrate must consider only the evidence presented by the complainant and not weigh the evidence in "golden scales." The court found that the High Court erroneously relied on evidence from a police investigation and statements from another complaint, which were extraneous to the proceedings.

4. Compliance with Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

The court noted that Section 203 requires the Magistrate to record reasons for dismissing a complaint. In this case, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint without assigning any reasons, which is a significant error. The absence of recorded reasons prejudices the complainant's right to seek revision and makes the order a nullity. The court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Sessions Court's order and directed further enquiry into the complaint against the respondent.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, and the court directed further enquiry into the complaint against the respondent. The court also addressed the contention that there could be no further enquiry since other persons were being tried for the same offence. It clarified that an enquiry against a different person for the same offence is permissible and should proceed.