Skip to content


Raj Chandra Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Hara Kishore Chakravarti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.564
AppellantRaj Chandra Chakravarti and anr.
RespondentHara Kishore Chakravarti
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 96 - search warrant, if can be addressed to accused for production of document--penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 175. - .....there is no reason why his case should not be heard, and proceedings in that matter cannot be stayed. they may fail owing to the non-production of this document, but with that we have nothing to do. he is willing to take the risk of proceeding with the case without any proceeding to compel the production of the document. it is clear that as long as the accused is under trial under section 500 no process under section 96 can be issued against him. but, with this reservation, there seems to be no reason why the complainant should not have a fair hearing of his case.3. as recommended by the deputy commissioner, we direct that the case under section 500 be transferred to the file of m. muhamed azhar, extra assistant commissioner, and magistrate first class silchar.
Judgment:

1. This is a Rule issued upon the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar to show cause why the proceedings under Sections 175 and 500, Indian Penal Code, should not be stayed pending the search for the document under Section 96, Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as such a warrant cannot be addressed to an accused person on his trial and there is nothing to show that the document is defamatory.

2. It is clear that the proceedings under Section 175 must be stayed on the ground stated in the Rule and as regards them the Rule is made absolute. But the private prosecutor very reasonably contends that as summons was issued on his complaint under Section 500 there is no reason why his case should not be heard, and proceedings in that matter cannot be stayed. They may fail owing to the non-production of this document, but with that we have nothing to do. He is willing to take the risk of proceeding with the case without any proceeding to compel the production of the document. It is clear that as long as the accused is under trial under Section 500 no process under Section 96 can be issued against him. But, with this reservation, there seems to be no reason why the complainant should not have a fair hearing of his case.

3. As recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, we direct that the case under Section 500 be transferred to the file of M. Muhamed Azhar, Extra Assistant Commissioner, and Magistrate first class Silchar.


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