Skip to content


Veluchamy Gounder Vs. Chinnaswamy and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1969CriLJ1458
AppellantVeluchamy Gounder
RespondentChinnaswamy and ors.
Cases ReferredJamana Sing v. Bhadai Shah
Excerpt:
- .....to the respondents after the report was submitted by the police and the case proceeded on the police report and the copies of the statements of witnesses and other records were furnished to the respondents under section 173(4) criminal p.c. they were ultimately acquitted.4. now the point is whether the acquittal was on a private complaint instituted by p. w. 1 or on the police report purported to have been submitted under section 173, criminal p.c.5. the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in jamana sing v. bhadai shah : 1964crilj468 . the supreme court held, that if once the magistrate took cognisance of the case on a private complaint, if he subsequently directs the police to investigate, such an investigation must be deemed to be only under section 202,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.

1. The above S. Rs. have been preferred by P. W. 1, to be admitted as appeal under Section 417(3), Criminal P.C., against the judgment of acquittal in C. C. 1992 of 1968 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Dindigul. The office felt a doubt whether those S. Rs. could be admitted as appeal. Hence, they are posted before me fox orders.

2. The learned Counsel, Sri Santhanam, who filed these S. Rs. submitted that the report filed by the police officer on a direction given by the Magistrate after taking cognisance of the private complaint filed under Section 190(1), Criminal P.C. must be deemed to be a report under Section 202, Criminal P.C. and that, therefore, the acquittal of the respondent must be deemed to be on the private complaint filed by the complainant and hence the provisions under Section 417(3), Criminal P.C. alone will apply and that these S. Rs. should be admitted as appeal.

3. It is necessary to note briefly as to what happened in the cage before the trial court, as seen from the records. P. W. 1 filed a private complaint against the respondents under Section 379, I.P.C. before the Sub-Magistrate, Dindigul. The Sub-Magistrate, Dindigul, immediately examined P. W. 1 the complainant on oath under Section 200, Criminal P.C. and thereafter, he referred the complaint to the police for investigation. The police took up investigation under Section 156(3), Criminal P.C. and submitted a report under Section 173, Criminal P.C. Process was issued to the respondents after the report was submitted by the police and the case proceeded on the police report and the copies of the statements of witnesses and other records were furnished to the respondents under Section 173(4) Criminal P.C. They were ultimately acquitted.

4. Now the point is whether the acquittal was on a private complaint instituted by P. W. 1 or on the police report purported to have been submitted under Section 173, Criminal P.C.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in Jamana Sing v. Bhadai Shah : 1964CriLJ468 . The Supreme Court held, that if once the Magistrate took cognisance of the case on a private complaint, if he subsequently directs the police to investigate, such an investigation must be deemed to be only under Section 202, Criminal P.C. and not under Section 156(3), Criminal P.C. and the report submitted by the police on such investigation can-not be deemed to be a report under Section 173, Criminal P.C. The Supreme Court further held that if the Magistrate after receiving the complaint, makes up his mind to examine the complainant on oath under Section 200, Criminal P.C. and examines the complainant, he must be deemed to have taken cognisance of the complaint. It is made clear in that decision that after taking the sworn statement of the complainant under Section 200, Criminal P.C. the direction by the Magistrate is only under Section 202, Criminal P.C., and not under Section 156(3), Criminal P.C.

6. In this case, the records show that the Magistrate after receiving the complaint examined the complainant on oath under Section 200, Criminal P.C. Therefore he had taken cognisance of the case under Section 190(1), Criminal P.C. on the private complaint filed by the complainant. The report submitted by the police on a direction by the Magistrate is a report under Section 202, Criminal P.C. It must, therefore, be deemed that the acquittal of the respondents was on the institution of private complaint and not on the police report. I am, therefore, of the view that these S, Rs. must be admitted as appeal. Ordered accordingly.

7. The assistance rendered to court by Messrs. G. Gopalaswami and C. K. Venkatanarasaimham, advocates, as amicas curiae is recorded.


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