Skip to content


Sasadhar Majumdar Vs. Aminaddi Sheikh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1957CriLJ671
AppellantSasadhar Majumdar
RespondentAminaddi Sheikh
Excerpt:
- .....for revision of order made by a magistrate of the first class at basirhat, discharging the opposite party under section 253 of the code of criminal procedure in respect of an offence under section 403 of the indian penal code.2. it appears that consequent on proceedings before a bhag chas conciliation board, a certain award or order had been made. this order, it is said, was not implemented by the opposite party who is the bargadar of the lands to question. the petitioner is the owner who then preferred a complaint charging the opposite party with having committed an offence under section 403 of the indian penal code in respect of paddy which had been awarded to him by the board.3. the learned magistrate took some evidence and made an order under section 253 of the code of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Debabrata Mookerjee, J.

1. This is a petition for revision of order made by a Magistrate of the First Class at Basirhat, discharging the opposite party under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It appears that consequent on proceedings before a Bhag Chas Conciliation Board, a certain award or order had been made. This order, it is said, was not implemented by the opposite party who is the Bargadar of the lands to question. The petitioner is the owner who then preferred a complaint charging the opposite party with having committed an offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of paddy which had been awarded to him by the Board.

3. The learned Magistrate took some evidence and made an order under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that no case had been made out against the opposite party which, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction of the accused. In the explanation which the Magistrate has submitted, it is said that there was, in fact violation of the order of the Bhag Chas Board, and that being so proceedings under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code were not appropriate.

4. Mr. Ghose has contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the true-effect of the complaint, and that he should have held that the facts alleged made out a case under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code. I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention. The clear case made is that there had been an award made by the local Bhag Chas Board and the opposite party had been directed to do certain things. There was failure on the part of the opposite party to comply with that order or award of the Board. In my view, proceedings under Section 14 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, would have been appropriate upon the allegations made. That section provides that if any person fails to comply with an award or order made under the Act he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. The gravaman of the allegations in the present case being that there was failure to comply with the order or award made by the Board, the opposite party was liable to be punished under Section 14 of the Bargadars Act to which I have just referred.

5. In a prosecution under Section 14 of the Bargadars Act two things need be proved : First, the existence of an order or award made by a Board, and secondly, non-compliance with that order or award. If these two elements are proved, the offence described in Section 14 is established. It will be perfectly open to Mr. Ghose's client to seek appropriate remedy under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, if, of course, he is advised to do so. An order of discharge in respect of an offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code cannot possibly be a bar to a properly framed complaint under Section 14 of the Bargadars Act.

6. Mr. Ghose complains that there is no machinery provided in the West Bengal Bargadars Act itself for the trial of offences under the Act. I do not see any difficulty in that respect. The procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure will undoubtedly apply. Section 29 of the Code provides as follows:

29(1) Subject to the other provisions of the Code, any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law be tried by such Court.

'(2) When no Court is so mentioned, it may be tried by the High Court or subject as aforesaid by any Court constituted under this Code by which such offence is shown in the eighth column of the Second Schedule to be triable.

The Second Schedule provides that any Magistrate can try an offence against any other law, if punishable with imprisonment for less than one year or fine only. The penalty that may be imposed under Section 14 of the Bargadars Act extends to six months or a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. Therefore, any Magistrate can try a contravention of Section 14 of the Bargadars Act provided a proper complaint is instituted in Court.

7. So far as the present proceedings are I concerned, it must be held that they were misconceived and the learned Magistrate was justified in making an order under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. With these observations this Rule is discharged.


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