Skip to content


Brahma Panda and anr. Vs. Chairman of Howrah Municipality - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 1135 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1961Cal648,1961CriLJ762
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Section 204(1B)
AppellantBrahma Panda and anr.
RespondentChairman of Howrah Municipality
Appellant AdvocateHaridas Chatterjee, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateBhola Nath Ray and ;Amal Kumar Ghosal, Advs.
DispositionRevision petition rejected
Excerpt:
- .....shouldhave attended the court in obedience to the summons and then brought to the notice of the learnedmagistrate that the summons was not accompaniedby a copy of the petition of complaint as requiredby section 204(1-b) of the code of criminal procedure.the petitioners were not justified in not attendingthe court of the learned magistrate. it cannot besaid that the jurisdiction of the learned magistratewas affected simply because the summons wasissued without a copy of the complaint. furtherit would appear from the summons itself that thepetitioners were required to answer to a chargeunder section 488 of the calcutta municipal act. itis true that quite a large number of offences arelisted under section 488 of the calcutta municipalact, but then if the petitioners attended the courtof.....
Judgment:

D.N. Das Gupta, J.

1. This is a revisional petition for quashing the proceedings in case No. 519-C of 1957 pending in the court of Sri S. N. Das Gupta, Magistrate of the first class, Howrah.

2. On a complaint made by the Municipality of Howrah on the 5th November, 1957, alleging that the present petitioners had violated the provisions under Section 448 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923 as extended to the Municipality of Howrah read with Rule 22 schedule 17 summons was issued against the petitioners. On the 12th December, 1957, summons was returned after service. But the accused were absent. Then warrant of arrest was issued on the 27th December, 1957, with bail of Rs. 500/- but the petitioners could not be arrested. Subsequently warrant of arrest was taken to the house of the petitioners on the 28th/29th July, 1958, at night when one Dinonath Tewari stood surety for the petitioners who had earlier left for their native village. On the 5th August, 1958, the surety appeared by a lawyer in court when the learned Magistrate, made the following order:

'Accused absent. Petition filed by surety asking for time to produce the accused, who aresaid to have gone home. Normally, I should nothave acceded to the request as the surety had nobusiness to pop in when he knew that the accusedpersons would be going away to their native villageshortly. Any way, I give a short adjournment tillthe 23rd August. If surety fails to produce theaccused persons positively on the date fixed, hewill stand to lose the entire amount of the bailbond.'

3. The revisional petition was filed in this court on the 22nd August, 1958, and on that date a rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Howrah and the complainant -- opposite party to show cause why the proceedings complained of should not be quashed or such other order or further order or orders made as 'to this court may deem fit and proper. The main contention of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners is that the summons was issued by the court without copy of the complaint annexed, that therefore thesummons was not summons at all and that therefore the petitioners were perfectly entitled to disobey the summons and refrain from attending the court. Paragraph 3 of the revisional petition states,

'That with the said summonses your petitioners, who were related as uncle and nephew, saw their lawyer who advised them that as the said summonses did hot disclose any offence intended to be charged, they were invalid and inoperative in law and as such failed to create any legal obligation on the part of your petitioners to comply with the direction given therein.'

Paragraph 4 of the revisional petition states,

'That your petitioners as advised by their lawyer did not appear before the said learned Magistrate on 12-12-57 the date mentioned in the said summonses'.

Then paragraph 9 of the revisional petition is as follows:

'That your petitioners humbly submit that from the facts and circumstances stated above, it is clear that the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case No. 519-C of 1957 of the aforesaid court from the very beginning not having been conducted according to the provision of the Cri. P. Code were not only illegal but without jurisdiction and against natural justice. The said proceedings, it is humbly submitted have clearly violated the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. And, therefore, unless the proceedings in the aforesaid case are immediately quashed, it will result in a serious miscarriage of justice subjecting your petitioners to further unnecessary loss of money, harassment and humiliation without any lawful excuse whatsoever',

4. We have carefully considered the revisional petition and arguments of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. We are unable toagree with him that the summons ceased to besummons simply because it was not accompaniedby copy of the complaint. The petitioners shouldhave attended the court in obedience to the summons and then brought to the notice of the learnedMagistrate that the summons was not accompaniedby a copy of the petition of complaint as requiredby Section 204(1-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The petitioners were not justified in not attendingthe court of the learned Magistrate. It cannot besaid that the jurisdiction of the learned Magistratewas affected simply because the summons wasissued without a copy of the complaint. Furtherit would appear from the summons itself that thepetitioners were required to answer to a chargeunder Section 488 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. Itis true that quite a large number of offences arelisted under Section 488 of the Calcutta MunicipalAct, but then if the petitioners attended the courtof the learned Magistrate and asked for a copy ofthe complaint, they would have known what thedetails of the offences were. At any rate althoughthe summons was issued without copy of the complaint annexed, the petitioners should not havedisregarded the summons and refused to attendthe court of the learned Magistrate. When thepetitioners attend the court of the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate will certainly directcopies of the complaint to be given to the petitioners.

5. In the result this revisional petition is rejected and the relevant Rule is discharged.

6. Let the records be sent down expeditiously and the case shall proceed in the court of the learned Magistrate in accordance with law,

N.K. Sen, J.

7. I agree.


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