Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1971 (9) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of committal passed by the learned Magistrate. The facts relevant to this appeal are few and may first be stated. On October 31, 1963, one Jivansingh Uttam Singh obtained a British passport bearing No. 183459 at Nairobi. On the strength of that passport he was returning to India with his family. On his way he died on board the ship. According to the prosecution that passport came into the hands of the appellant. Bakshi Singh desired to go to the United Kingdom, but had no passport. The appellant agreed to arrange his journey and also for that purpose to obtain a passport for him. The allegation was that the appellant prepared an application for a visa in the name of Bakshi Singh. It was further alleged that with a view to procure .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r secs. 120B and 467 of the Penal Code. The offence of criminal conspiracy charged under sec. 120B was that the said Bakshi Singh and the appellant had conspired to forge the said passport for the use of the said Bakshi Singh. In the High Court various contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant in support of his application under sec. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure including that under sec. 196A (2). That contention was that no consent as required by sec. 196A(2) having been first obtained, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence of conspiracy, and therefore, the committal order was without jurisdiction and had to be quashed. In this appeal we are concerned only with that contention as the spe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint or on a police report, or upon information of a person other than a police officer. Therefore, when a magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report, prima facie he does so of the offence or offences disclosed in such report. It is not in dispute that the charge-sheet submitted by the police officer for the purpose of initiation of proceedings by the magistrate was for offences under sees. 419 and 471 read with sec. 468 against Bakshi Singh and under sees. 419/109, 471 and 468 against the appellant. The charge- sheet admittedly did not refer to or charge either of them with crimin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d applied to him to initiate proceedings against Bakshi Singh and the appellant and not for the offence under sec. 120B. It was at a later stage, i.e., at the time of passing the committal order that he considered that a charge under sec. 120B was the more appropriate charge and not a charge under sec. 109 of the Penal Code. That being so, it must be held that the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence of abetment of an offence of forgery and impersonation so far as the appellant was concerned and not of the offence of criminal conspiracy, and therefore, sec. 196A(2) did not apply. Counsel in this connection relied on certain observations made in a minority judgment of S. K. Das, J., in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ately held that though the offence of criminal conspiracy was alluded to in para 5 of the said complaint, the offence primarily and essentially charged was abetment by conspiracy under sec. 109 of the Penal Code, and therefore. no consent under sec. 196A(2) was required. In Biroo Sardar v. Ariff A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 579 the view also taken was that itis not the, sections referred to which matter but the offence prima facie disclosed. Following that decision, the High Court of Bombay in Ramchandra v. Emperor A.I.R. 1939 [Bom.] 129 observed that the question whether sanction is necessary or not depends not on the sections referred to in a complaint but the offence prima facie disclosed'. by the facts alleged in it. It is clear from the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates