Skip to content


S.R. Bagnall Vs. Mrs. Dean and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in164Ind.Cas.521
AppellantS.R. Bagnall
RespondentMrs. Dean and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 203 - complainant purchasing sewing machine on hire-purchase system--default in payment--company's employee removing machine--complaint for trespass and for issue of search warrant--magistrate holding no trespass committed but issuing search warrant--held, magistrate could not issue search warrant but should have dismissed complaint under section 203--criminal trial. - .....the employee of the company had committed criminal trespass and theft and asked for the issue of a search warrant. the learned magistrate sent the case for enquiry and, on march 29, upon the report, held that no criminal action would lie. nevertheless, he issued a search warrant to recover the machine which he ordered to be made over to the complainant s.r. bagnall on a bond for rs. 100.3. this order the magistrate had no authority to make. he had rejected the application of the complainant, and ought to have dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the code of criminal procedure. after that, he was not in position to make an order for the issue of a search warrant a or that the machine should be handed over to the complainant.4. the sessions judge has, in these circumstances,.....
Judgment:

Lort Williams, J.

1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The complainant purchased a Singer Sewing Machine on a hire-purchase agreement. He paid about Rs. 120 when he made default in payment of the monthly hire for four consecutive months. Thereupon, the Singer Sewing Machine Company sent an employee to his house to remove the machine as they were entitled to do under the terms of the agreement. This was on the February 27, 1935. On the next day, he appeared before the Police Magistrate of Sealdah and alleged that the employee of the Company had committed criminal trespass and theft and asked for the issue of a search warrant. The learned Magistrate sent the case for enquiry and, on March 29, upon the report, held that no criminal action would lie. Nevertheless, he issued a search warrant to recover the machine which he ordered to be made over to the complainant S.R. Bagnall on a bond for Rs. 100.

3. This order the Magistrate had no authority to make. He had rejected the application of the complainant, and ought to have dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After that, he was not in position to make an order for the issue of a search warrant a or that the machine should be handed over to the complainant.

4. The Sessions Judge has, in these circumstances, recommended that the order of the Magistrate be revised and the complainant be dealt with under Section 203 and that the order for issue of a search warrant be quashed. This, accordingly, is the order of this Court.

5. The reference is accepted.

Jack, J.

6. I agree.


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