9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art from the two cases referred to by the Additional Sessions Judge there are two more cases Udey Bir Singh v. Smt. Shakuntla Devi. (1973) 9 D.L.T. 382 decided by Safeer, J. and Lakshmi and another v. State. (Cr. R. 75 of 1974) decided on 10.4.74 by Aggarwal. J. taking the same view. A different view was, however, expressed by V. D. Misra. J. in R. N. Bhalla v. Chatur Sain Gupta. (Cr. R. 303 of 1970) decided on 8.9.70 and by Ansari, J. himself in N. P. Chauhan v. Nirmal Kumar Chauhan (Cr. R. 104 of 1972) decided on 15.5.72. Because of this conflict of opinion he referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for its being placed before a Division Bench and an order was passed accordingly. (2) There was another complaint instituted by Lachman Singh and in that offences covered by sections 323, 451 and 120-B read with section 34 Indian Penal Code . were said to have been committed by Raja Ram and some other accused. This case came up before Shri Bharat Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. He examined the complaint and one more witness produced by him satisfied by this evidence that there were grounds to proceed further against all the accused persons u/s/ 323/451//34/120B I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strate. The accused then filed a petition in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for the magistrate's proceedings being quashed [Cr. M. (M) 99 of 1974]. The petition came up before Sachar, J. and for reasons similar to those he advanced in Cr. R. No. 188 of 1974. this case too was referred to a Division Bench. (5) All these four cases are being taken up together because the question involved in them is common : 'Is the Magistrate issuing process under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 required by the law to pass a speaking order, that is, to state reasons for doing so ?' (6) We will start consideration of the matter by referring to the cases cited by the petitioners' counsel in support of their contention that as a condition precedent to the issuance of process under section 204 Cr. P. C. the magistrate must apply his mind to the material referred to in section 203 and by way of proof of this application of mind he must record a speaking order. (7) In Mubark Karim v. Bundu, (1973) 9 D. L. T. 318, there were accused persons. The magistrate heard arguments of the complainant's counsel and directed five of them, against whom the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -4-1974 so as to set-aside the order of the magistrate to proceed against certain accused persons for the reasons stated by the Additional Sessions Judge, i.e. it suffered from arbitrariness and did not disclose that Judicial mind was applied to the material available and for this decision strength was drived from Manohar Lal Sharma v. Smt. Prem Lata and others, (1973) 75 P.L.R. (Delhi Section 268, a case to which reference has already been made above). (9) Another order of a magistrate purporting to have been passed under section 204 Criminal Procedure Code . was attacked before Aggarwal, J. in pursuance of a reference by an Additional Sessions Judge in Mittar Sain etc. v. Ram Chander (Cr. R. 277 of 1973 decided on 3-9-1973) on the ground it had been made without applying the mind of the court to the material on the record but the learned Judge held that there was a prima facie case for proceeding under section 204 and the petition was dismissed. (10) The principle laid down in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Prem Lata, (supra) was endorsed by Yogeshwar Dayal, J. in Banarsi Lal Sachdeva and others v. Raj Rani, (Cr. R. No. 85 of 1974) decided on 5-6-1974, yet it was remarked that ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. P. Chauhan v. Nirmal Kumari Chauhan, (Cr. R. 104 of 1972) decided on 15-5-1972 that a magistrate is not required to pass a speaking order under section 204 Criminal Procedure Code . (15) In R. N. Bhalla v. Chatur Sain Gupta, (Cr. R. 303/70) decided on September 8, 1970 V. D. Misra, J.C found that under the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure a magistrate is required to examine the complainant and his witnesses (if any) and after he had done so if he finds that there are grounds for proceeding further in the matter, that is, a prima facie case has been made out, he is to summon the accused under the provisions of section 204, Criminal Procedure Code and he need not give reasons of his satisfaction and the order passed by the Magistrate cannot be set aside in revision because making of this order does not go to the root of the matter. It was added that even if it be assumed that the Magistrate should give reasons and he does not do so that will be a mere irregularity. (16) The question how the Court should make its satisfaction known for the purposes of section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cropped up before a Division Bench of this Court in Inder ji ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce on dis- putable grounds, but the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case on the assumption that what is stated can be true unless the prosecution allegations are so fantastic that they cannot reasonably be held to be true . (19) The appeal in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of W. B. and others, arose from the dismissal of a complaint by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the confirmation of the order of dismissal by the Calcutta High Court. Their Lordships observed in para 22 of their judgment that :- THE object of the examination of the complainant and his witnesses under S. 200 Criminal Procedure Code . is to ascertain whether there is prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint, and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person. Such examination is provided, therefore, to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. . . -The words 'sufficient ground' used also in Section 209 have been construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;. Whereas section 203 deals with complaints exclusively, section 204 speaks of issue of process when cognizance of an offence is taken by a magistrate and cognizance may be taken by him not only upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence but upon a police report, upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed. So the case of issue of process in a complaint is equated with the case of issue of process in a matter originating with a police report or information received from any person other than a police officer, or the magistrate's own knowledge or suspicion and not with the case of a dismissal of complaint. (22) When complaint is presented to a magistrate under section 200 Criminal Procedure Code . and he takes cognizance of the offence referred to therein he is required to examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and this preliminary evidence may be considered by him to be adequate enough material for the issue of process under section 204. If the complamt is by a court or a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... English Dictionary 'Judgment' is 'the sentence of a court of justice' 'a judicial decision or order in court', 'any formal or authoritative decision, as of an arbiter' whereas opinion is 'what one opines', 'judgment resting on grounds insufficient for complete demonstration'; 'belief of something as probable or as seeming to one's own mind to be true'. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary Judgment is 'a formal utterance or pronouncing of an authoritative opinion after judging'; 'a record or statement of the reasons for a specific judicial decision' whereas Opinion 'implies a conclusion concerning something on which ideas may differ, not, however excluding a careful consideration or weighing of evidence or pros and cons, but usually stressing the subjectivity and disputability of the conclusion'. A reference to 'Words and Phrases Legally Defined, Second Edition, would reveal that judgment 'in its widest sense, may be said to include any decision given by a court on a question or questions at issue between the parties to a proceeding properly before the court& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n reasonable time. It may be dismissed again if the complainant fails to appear on the date fixed for the hearing of the matter provided the offence is compoundable or non-cognizable or the case is a summons case. After the complainant has completed production of his evidence the Court may discharge the accused on having his version of the matter and even without that. The Court may discharge him rather at still earlier stages of the case if it considers the charge to be groundless. The accused can seek composition of the crime from the complainant without bringing the Court in respect of certain offences and with the permission of the Court in respect of some other offences and in either case, the proceeding ends in acquittal. The accused has of course to be acquitted if it is determined after the trial that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is thus clear that when process is issued under Section 204 the proceedings just commence by way of an interlocutory order and attendance of the accused is requisitioned so that the court can hear both the parties and reach its ultimate decision. On the other hand when the complaint is dismissed under section 203 the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssarily upon the facts of each case. The case under reference was not thought fit for interference in the exercise of Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction and the appeal of M.P. Industries was, therefore, dismissed. On the other hand in Som Dutt v. Union of India, where the prayer was for quashing the proceed- ings before a General Court Marshal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that apart from any requirement imposed by the statute or statutory rule expressly or by necessary implication it could not be expected that there is any general principle or any rule of natural justice that statutory tribunal should always and in every case give reasons in support of its decision. (30) The detenue urged before Supreme Court in John Martin v. State of Bengal, (Writ Petition No. 467 of 1974 decided on 21-1-75) a case under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 that because the order of the State Government rejecting his representation did not disclose any reasons his detention was invalid. Their Lordships referred to an earlier decision of the Court in Hardhan Saha's case (Writ Petition No. 1999 of 1973) decided on 21-8-1974, holding that there need not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
