Skip to content


Kanchan Gorhi Vs. Ram Kishun Mundul - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR36Cal72
AppellantKanchan Gorhi
RespondentRam Kishun Mundul
Excerpt:
complaint - magistrate--complaint to magistrate in charge of the sadar--reference of complaint to another magistrate for inquiry and report--jurisdiction of latter to direct prosecution of the complainant before dismissal of the complaint--'judicial proceedings'--criminal procedure code (act v of 1908) sections 4(m) and 476. - .....by the complainant, was false and, therefore, he took proceedings under section 476 of the criminal procedure code, and committed the complainant for trial under section 211 of the indian penal code.2. the present rule was obtained on the district magistrate to show cause, why the proceedings drawn by mr. oakley under section 476 of the criminal procedure code should not be set aside on the ground that, after the case had been transferred to mr. oakley by the deputy magistrate, babu s.k. mukerjee, for inquiry and report only, mr. oakley had no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 476 of the criminal procedure code, until the original complaint was disposed of.3. whether the case was sent to mr. oakley by babu s.k. mukerjee under the provisions of section 192 or under.....
Judgment:

Brett and Ryves, JJ.

1. It appears that the case, out of which this Rule arises, was sent by Babu S.K. Mukerjee, who had taken cognisance of it, to another Deputy Magistrate, Mr. Oakley, for inquiry prior to the issue of processes against the accused. Mr. Oakley made the inquiry, examined witnesses, and came to the conclusion that the case, as presented by the complainant, was false and, therefore, he took proceedings under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and committed the complainant for trial under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The present Rule was obtained on the District Magistrate to show cause, why the proceedings drawn by Mr. Oakley under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be set aside on the ground that, after the case had been transferred to Mr. Oakley by the Deputy Magistrate, Babu S.K. Mukerjee, for inquiry and report only, Mr. Oakley had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, until the original complaint was disposed of.

3. Whether the case was sent to Mr. Oakley by Babu S.K. Mukerjee under the provisions of Section 192 or under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is clear that Mr. Oakley, in carrying out the order received with that order of transfer examined witnesses and recorded evidence on oath. In our opinion the proceedings conducted by Mr. Oakley, who is a Magistrate, fall within the description given in Section 4, Clause (m) of the Criminal Procedure Code of 'judicial proceedings.' That being so we must hold that, under the provisions of Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Mr. Oakley had power to take proceedings under that section against the complainant for any offence referred to in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code committed before him or brought to his notice in the course of those proceedings, and to commit the accused for trial for having committed that offence.

5. We must, therefore, discharge the Rule.


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