Bombay High Court
Gurudas Balkrishna vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji-Goa on 16 October, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993(2)BOMCR27, (1993)95BOMLR60, 1994CRILJ444, 1993(2)MHLJ1082
ORDER
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.
2. Applicant in person has filed this application praying for transfer of a criminal case which he has filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Panaji and for some other reliefs. Applicant filed a complaint which is registered as Criminal Case No. 163/92/A before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, alleging an offence under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code against the Editor and Publisher of a local newspaper.
3. I have heard the applicant in person and also Shri S. S. Kantak who was appointed as Amicus Curiae and Shri G. U. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor. No ground is made out for transfer of the criminal case from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, and therefore, the prayer to this effect stands rejected.
4. The main grievance of the applicant appears to be that though he had filed a complaint for defamation as far back as 31st of July, 1992, the learned Magistrate has not even recorded his statement for verification of the complaint as required under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code till this date and he has adjourned the case up to 19th February, 1993. According to the complainant, delay in recording the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and adjourning the case for such a long time defeats the ends of justice.
5. Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with complaints lodged by private persons before the Magistrate. It is true that Legislature has brought out some changes in the old Section 200 of 1898 Code and the words 'at once' requiring the Magistrate to examine the complainant as soon as the complaint is received have been omitted. But the omission of the words 'at once' does not necessarily mean that the Legislature has given a go-by to the requirement of recording of the statement of the complainant within the shortest possible time. Section 200 of the Code of 1973 requires that the complainant shall be examined and all his witnesses present shall also be examined and the statements so reduced in writing shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and by the Magistrate. This examination is sine qua non for the consideration of issue of process and gives an opportunity to the Magistrate to ascertain about the truth of the allegations made in the complaint. In a way it is a safeguard for both the complainant and the accused persons. It would be the first authentic record on oath at the earliest opportunity and, therefore, can be taken help of to ascertain whether there are some additions and improvements in the prosecution case. If there is unnecessary delay in recording the first statement of the complainant under Section 200, it is likely to lose much of its importance. The words 'at once' qualifying the time at which the Magistrate is required to record the statement were omitted in the Code of 1973 at the recommendation of the Law Commission not with intention to permit the Magistrates to adjourn the case months together for verification of the complaint. When these words were omitted, to avoid some unnecessary controversies of the meaning of 'at once', questions were raised in some cases whether a short adjournment would be an irregularity going to the root of the case. The omission of these words is not to be misunderstood. The Law Commission in recommending this change observe thus :-
"..... Section 200 requires that the Magistrate must examine the complainant 'at once' in order to emphasise that such examination is in every case, the first step to be taken. It can, however, lead to futile controversy about the effect of some time interval between the receiving of a complaint and the complainant's examination, which we would like to avoid. We have, therefore, deleted the expression "at once" as we have no doubt that the mandate of the law is otherwise sufficiently clear".
6. Provision of Section 200 is of such a nature which will not permit unnecessary delay : Therefore, the Legislature though it fit that instead of giving a mandate by words 'at once' which would not be capable of any relaxation, it is better to rely on the discretion of the learned Magistrates who will be trying the criminal cases arising out of the complaints. A private complaint is by its character very different from a case instituted on Police report. There is no inquiry by the Police, there are no statements under Section 162, and therefore, to safeguard innocent people it is necessary to record the statements of the complainant and his witnesses as soon as possible and then looking to the credibility of that evidence take a decision about the issuance of the process. There is another purpose of this verification. Sometimes a serious crime might be unveiled in a complaint of which the Police had refused to take notice and investigate for some reason. The Magistrate thereupon is empowered by the Criminal Procedure Code to direct the investigation and submission of a report. If this investigation is to be made and the report is to be submitted under Section 202, it will have to be done without losing further time. If the complainant is adjourned for months together for verification, no purpose would be served in ordering an inquiry under Section 202 by postponing the issue of process since most of the evidence then might have ceased to exist. This being the position, it is the duty of the Magistrate to record the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses as is required under Section 200 as soon as practicable. However busy a Magistrate may be, he cannot read the absence of the words 'at once' in Section 200 to authorise him to delay the examination by such an unexcusable delay.
7. In the instant case the complaint was presented before the learned Magistrate on 31st July, 1992. It was taken on record on 3rd August, 1992. Nothing happened thereafter till 25th of September, 1992 and the Roznama of this date speaks about some other cases required to be dealt with on priority basis before the learned Magistrate and the case is adjourned for those reasons to 19th February, 1993. Engagement of the Court for a day in some other work would not justify the postponment of the case, that too for verification, for about five months. Such a delay is likely to frustrate the purpose for which the criminal complainants are filed.
8. I, therefore, allow this application and direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, to record the evidence of the complainant and of the witnesses, if any, present on the day fixed by him, within a week from today and, thereafter immediately proceed to consider the question of process whether it is to be issued or not within a period of two weeks thereafter. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the merits of the contention in the complaint and about the requirement whether process is to be issued or not. The rest of the prayers in this Criminal Miscellaneous Application are not considered as they are not relevant to the criminal case in question.
Rule made absolute in the above terms.
9. Copies of this judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judges of North Goa and South Goa with a request to bring this to the notice of all the Magistrates working within their jurisdiction.
10. Application allowed.