Skip to content


Mewa Lal Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All125(1); 56Ind.Cas.64
AppellantMewa Lal
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 202, 203, 476 - penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 211--complaint against police officer--investigation by another police officer, propriety of--complaint dismissed without complainant's evidence--complainant order for prosecution of, whether justified. - .....are simple. a police officer searched the house of mewa lal. the latter made a complaint that this police officer had searched his house without reason and that in the course of the search he used threatening and abusive language towards him and his wife. the magistrate sent the complaint for enquiry to another police officer, who reported it to be groundless. the magistrate dismissed the complaint on the 22nd of november and on the same date called upon mewa lal to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under section 211 of the code. mewa lal did show cause, and one ground that he put forward was that it was improper to direct, his prosecution without the court hearing his evidence. in spite of this the court directed his prosecution under section 211 of the code. i am far from.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. The facts of this case are simple. A Police Officer searched the house of Mewa Lal. The latter made a complaint that this Police Officer had searched his house without reason and that in the course of the search he used threatening and abusive language towards him and his wife. The Magistrate sent the complaint for enquiry to another Police Officer, who reported it to be groundless. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the 22nd of November and on the same date called upon Mewa Lal to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Section 211 of the Code. Mewa Lal did show cause, and one ground that he put forward was that it was improper to direct, his prosecution without the Court hearing his evidence. In spite of this the Court directed his prosecution under Section 211 of the Code. I am far from saying that in every case the Magistrate is bound to take the evidence and cannot act upon the report of the Investigating Officer, but in the present case the accused person was a Police Officer. The investigation had been made by another Police Officer and the of. fence was not a cognizable one, and I do not think the Magistrate has acted wisely in directing an investigation by a Police Officer in such a case. The enquiry ought, in my opinion, to have been made either by the Magistrate himself or by some other Magistrate on his behalf. In the circumstances I do not think that the order directing the prosecution of Mewa Lal should be allowed to stand and I, therefore, set it aside.


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