Skip to content


Amarendra Chandra Chakravorty Vs. Garrison Engineer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1945Cal340
AppellantAmarendra Chandra Chakravorty
RespondentGarrison Engineer and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....accused before a court-martial and released him on bail, thus making the rule infructuous. the high court therefore discharged the rule by the following order: order 6. we are informed that the petitioner has been released on bail, the military authorities having decided that he will be tried by the ordinary civil courts. the result is that this rule is accordingly discharged.
Judgment:

JUDGMENT

1. One A. C. Chakravorty was appointed as a "Siding Supervisor" by the Garrison Engineer, Indian Works Section, Feni Air Fields to supervise the works of labourers employed. He was subsequently removed from service by the Garrison Engineer. On the same day, a complaint in writing marked 'confidential' was sent to Sub-divisional Officer Feni, District Noakhali, by the Garrison Engineer for having extorted money from his subordinates. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences complained of and issued a warrant of arrest under Sections 406/384, Penal Code. He was arrested and produced before the Sub-divisional Officer who ordered remand. A bail was applied for but was refused by the Magistrate and also by the Sessions Judge, Ultimately, the High Court ordered release on interim bail after notice to the Crown. The order was ultimately made absolute.

2. During the bail proceedings, when the accused appeared before the Magistrate for his trial, he was re-arrested as he was claimed by the Officer Commanding and remanded to Hajat pending arrival of military escort. On arrival of the escort, the accused was handed over to the military escort. One day after, he was sent back to the Sub-divisional Officer for keeping him in custody "until further orders." The Magistrate remanded the accused to Hajat but made a reference to the District Magistrate, Noakhali as he found no provision whereby the accused claimed by Court-Martial could be kept in civil custody.

3. A bail application was moved before the Sub-divisional Officer but he without either rejecting or granting it passed an order that the accused would be released on bail as per orders of the High Court, if he is not taken in custody by the military authorities. However, he was remanded from time to time to Hajat.

4. An application for a copy of the requisition under Section 549(2), Criminal P. C., under which the accused was handed over to military authorities was filed on behalf of the accused, but the copy was not granted as the requisition was not then available to the copying department. Ultimately the High Court was moved under Section 491, Cr. P. C. The main grounds were, (1) that the military authorities were incompetent to claim the accused for Court-Martial having consented to the continuation of proceedings before the Sub-divisional Officer; (2) that they could not claim re-arrest by requisition under Section 549(2); (3) that they could not take away original records of the case from the Sub-divisional Officer; (4) that no statement as required under Section 549(1) was wanting; (5) that the detention after the High Court had granted bail was illegal; and (6) that a fraud has been committed on the statute. A rule was issued in the following terms by Roxburgh and Ormond JJ. on 5th/6th March 1945: "Let a rule issue under Section 491(1)(a), (b) and (d), Criminal P. C., calling upon the District Magistrate, Noakhali, and the Superintendent of Feni Sub-Jail to show cause why the petitioner who has been illegally or improperly detained in custody should not be brought up before the Court to be dealt with according to law or set at liberty or why the petitioner detained as aforesaid should be brought before a court-martial for trial."

5. The rule was made returnable in a fortnight. Permission was given to the advocate for the petitioner to add two grounds. The military authorities then desired not to proceed against the accused before a Court-Martial and released him on bail, thus making the rule infructuous. The High Court therefore discharged the rule by the following order:

ORDER

6. We are informed that the petitioner has been released on bail, the military authorities having decided that he will be tried by the ordinary civil Courts. The result is that this rule is accordingly discharged.


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