Skip to content


Panchu Gopal Ghose Vs. Jogen Naskar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case No. 134 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Cal594,57CWN565
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Section 250(1)
AppellantPanchu Gopal Ghose
RespondentJogen Naskar
Appellant AdvocateC.C. Gangully and ;Amaresh Ch. Roy, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateRabindra Nath Mitra, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....case was false. the second reason was that as he was ill he could not do all this immediately. the learned magistrate has nowhere said that either of the two reasons was not acceptable or was not a good reason. all that the learned. magistrate says is that it was incumbent upon the complainant to show cause forthwith. such is not the law. section 250 clearly lays down that the magistrate is to call upon the complainant forthwith and not that the complainant cannot have time to show cause and must show cause forthwith. the magistrate has not given time to the complainant to show cause and held that he must do so forthwith and as this had not been done he passed judgment. when he has forthwith called upon the complainant the complainant may ask for time and the question of granting time.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chunder, J.

1. The facts in this case as far as necessary for our present purpose can be summarised within a very short compass. The petitioner brought a criminal case against the opposite party. The learned Magistrate held that the case was frivolous and vexatious. He does not exactly say false. He called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation under Section 250, Criminal P. C. The complainant it appears was absent and he filed an application wanting time on two grounds, namely, that as the judgment was a long one covering several pages he must have a copy to find out on what ground his case has been held to be frivolous and vexatious and what material there was in the judgment to give rise to an inference, not explicitly drawn, that the case was false. The second reason was that as he was ill he could not do all this immediately.

The learned Magistrate has nowhere said that either of the two reasons was not acceptable or was not a good reason. All that the learned. Magistrate says is that it was incumbent upon the complainant to show cause forthwith. Such is not the law. Section 250 clearly lays down that the Magistrate is to call upon the complainant forthwith and not that the complainant cannot have time to show cause and must show cause forthwith. The Magistrate has not given time to the complainant to show cause and held that he must do so forthwith and as this had not been done he passed judgment. When he has forthwith called upon the complainant the complainant may ask for time and the question of granting time must be decided on its merits and if time is necessary time is to be granted. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for time on an erroneous view of the law.

2. The order must therefore be set aside. This matter will go back to the trial Court and the petitioner will show cause within a month of notification to him of arrival of the records in that Court and then the Court will decide on the cause shown according to law The matter will be heard by a Magistrate different from the Magistrate against whose order the present petition has been filed as he has already expressed his opinion in the matter.

3. The Rule is thus disposed of.


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