9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Competency of complaint without sanction for accused who are government servants. 2. Authority to issue process under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Power of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Competency of Complaint Without Sanction: The case involved a complaint filed against government officials for dacoity without the necessary sanction. Initially, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint citing incompetence due to lack of sanction as the accused were government servants. However, the High Court accepted a reference, set aside the Magistrate's order, and directed the case to proceed in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for proper sanction in such cases. Authority to Issue Process Under Section 204: The High Court quashed the process issued against the accused, highlighting the discrepancy that the Magistrate who took cognizance was different from the one who issued the process. The Court clarified that under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only the Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the case has the authority to issue process. It emphasized the importance of following the procedural requirements for issuing processes, either by the cognizant Magistrate or by a Magistrate to whom the case has been transferred. Power of the High Court under Section 561-A: Regarding the High Court's power under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was argued that the High Court should not have assessed the establishment of a prima facie case. The Court explained that the High Court can examine the presence of legal evidence and, in this case, found the evidence unreliable and tainted, leading to the quashing of the process against one of the accused. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to quash the process and dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the competency of complaints against government servants, the authority to issue processes under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the High Court's power to evaluate legal evidence under section 561-A. The decision emphasized the procedural requirements for issuing processes and upheld the High Court's decision to quash the process against one of the accused due to unreliable evidence.
|
