1. In this case there was some trouble over what was called 'peaceful picketing' outside the Dacca University on 21st July 1930, with the result that it became necessary for the police to disperse an unlawful assembly which was obstructing the public road and during a charge made by the police certain students of the University became involved and one of them was so seriously injured that he died. His brother then made a complaint against the Superintendent of Police, a Police Sergeant, and certain constables whose names he could not give. This complaint was heard by Mr. Ghose, Additional District Magistrate and he examined the complainant on one or two occasions and finally adjourned the further consideration of the matter, until he could obtain the report of an inquiry under Section 176, Criminal P. 0., which was being held. Eventually, he pointed out that no charge could be made against the Superintendent of Police because this required the sanction of the Government under Section 197, Criminal P.C. As regards the unnamed persons, after consideration of the inquest report ha came to the conclusion that the deceased met his death by misadventure for which no blame could attach to anyone. In his explanation he says that the inquest under Section 176 held by the District Magistrate, though not made under the orders of the Additional District Magistrate, might be held to have taken the place of the inquiry contemplated under 3. 202, Criminal P.C., and that there seemed no use in holding a second inquiry about the same matter. Further, ha stated that this inquest inquiry had not been held in camera as has been suggested by the complainant and that the complainant was given notice of the hearing and had every opportunity of being present. While expressing every possible sympathy with the complainant in this tragic circumstance, we cannot help feeling that the Magistrate's attitude was a reasonable one. On the other hand, it cannot be said that ha has followed strictly the rules laid down by law. If he had merely rejected the complaint without further inquiry, probably no criticism could have been made about what he did. But it is clear that he has taken the inquest report into consideration and has treated this as a report made after an inquiry which is contemplated by Section 202, Criminal P.C. This procedure does not seem to be justified.
2. We think on the whole that it is desirable that a proper inquiry should be hold into the circumstances of this case. Therefore the Magistrate's order dated 15th September 1930, is set aside and the rule is made absolute.