Skip to content


A. Subhaschandra Bose (Accused) Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ503
AppellantA. Subhaschandra Bose (Accused)
RespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Excerpt:
.....expressum facit cessare tacitum (when there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. section 7: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] levy of market fee element of quid pro quo - held, levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of sttaes taxing power. there is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. it is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified. expressum facit cessare tacitum sections 4 &..........of the judicial first class magistrate anantapur to direct the said magistrate to deal with the charge sheet in crime no. 98 of 1971 singanamala police station according to law and to proceed with the committal and enquiry against the accused therein. the accused in crime no. 98 of 1971 of singanamala police station is the complainant in p.r.c. no. 19/71. in this petition it is stated that the petitioner who was the assistant superintendent of police and placed in charge of anantapur rural circle from 1.9.71 to 14.10.71 was the investigating police officer in crime no. 92 of 1971 of singanamala police station. on receipt of reliable information that some of the absconding accused in the murder case were being harboured in the house of d. venkata ranga reddy complainant in p.r.c. no......
Judgment:
ORDER

Muktadar, J.

1. This is a petition by the Accused in P.R.C. No. 19 of 1971 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Anantapur to direct the said Magistrate to deal with the charge sheet in Crime No. 98 of 1971 Singanamala Police Station according to law and to proceed with the committal and enquiry against the accused therein. The accused in Crime No. 98 of 1971 of Singanamala Police Station is the complainant in P.R.C. No. 19/71. In this petition it is stated that the petitioner who was the Assistant Superintendent of Police and placed in charge of Anantapur Rural Circle from 1.9.71 to 14.10.71 was the Investigating Police Officer in Crime No. 92 of 1971 of Singanamala Police Station. On receipt of reliable information that some of the absconding accused in the murder case were being harboured in the house of D. Venkata Ranga Reddy complainant in P.R.C. No. 1971 the petitioner alone with the police party proceeded to apprehend the accused in the said murder case. They went to the house of Venkata Ranga Reddy and called him. But he delayed the opening of the doors of his house in order to facilitate the escape of the absconding accused in the darkness. The police party brought Venkata Ranga Reddy to Singanamgla Police Station at about 6 a.m. on 11.10.1971 for purposes of interrogation. It is stated that on the way to the Police Station. Venkata Ranga Reddy resisted the authority of the police and tried to escape from the police custody whenever the jeep slowed down or stooped on the way. During the course of interrogation. Venkata Ranga Reddy attempted to escape from the police custody; he ran out of the police station in haste, fell down and sustained minor injuries. The Police caught hold of him and brought him back to the Police Station The Sub-Inspector of Police Registered a case against him as Crime No. 98/71 of Singanamala Police Station and brought him to Anantapur Taluk Police Station by 11.30 a.m. for being produced before the J.F.C.M. Ananthapur for remand On these facts, the Sub-Inspector of Police Singanamala Police Station filed a charge sheet on 17.12.1971 in Crimp No. 98 of 1971 against the accused. D. Venkata Ranga Reddy for the offence under Sections 353, 211, 212, and 224 I.P.C. read with Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh District Police Act. 1859 in the Court of the J.F.C.M. Ananthapur. It is alleged that the learned Magistrate who ought to have issued Process on receipt of the charge sheet and dealt with the accused according to law neither had taken cognizance of the charge-sheet nor had given a judicial disposal to it. On the other hand, on the filing of a memo dated 17.12.1971 by S.G. Munirathnam Inspector of Police Anantapur Rural Circle for the return of the charge sheet the learned Magistrate returned it to him on the basis of the said memo. Various allegations have been made against S.G. Munirathnam. Inspector of Police Ananthapur to the effect that he is under the influence of D. Venkata Ranga Reddv-It is stated that as per the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 4241 of 1971 and W.A. 440/71. the learned Magistrate obtained the charge sheet from the Inspector of Police and forwarded the same to this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to return the charge sheet once it was filed in Court, that it was the duty of the Magistrate to proceed under Section 204, Cr.P.C. and that if it is a Calendar Case, the Magistrate should proceed under Section 251A, Cr.P.C.

2. I find some force in this contention. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which empowers the Magistrate to return the charge-sheet which he had received under Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. which Provides:

(1) Except as hereinafter provided any Presidency Magistrate. District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate, and any other Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf, may take cognizance of any offence

(a).

(b) upon a report in writing of such facts madp bv anv police officer.

(c).

Once a charge-sheet is filed, the Magistrate has to proceed with it under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the evidence before him. he will have either to convict or acquit or discharge the accused.

3. I. therefore, find that the order of the Magistrate returning the charge sheet on the basis of a memo filed by S.G. Muniratnam. Inspector of Police Anantapur is not proper and set aside the same. The Magistrate will proceed with the case on the basis of the charge sheet filed on 17.12.1971 in accordance with law The petition is accordingly allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //