Patna High Court
Arjun Singh vs Gangotri Singh And Ors. on 4 January, 1956
Equivalent citations: AIR1956PAT530, 1956CRILJ1428, AIR 1956 PATNA 530, 1956 BLJR 234
ORDER Sahai, J.
1. This application for revision arises in the following circumstances: Petitioner Arjun Singh, was attached as a constable to the Faro Police Station. On 12-9-1953, he was directed under a command certificate to execute a non-bailable warrant of arrest against Inder Sahni (opposite party No. 4), who was an accused in a case under Ss. 380 and 457, Penal Code.
The petitioner lodged a first information report at 1-30 a.m. on 25-9-1953 to the effect that he went to village Amaitha and arrested Inder Sahni but Inder Sahni was rescued by P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others and he himself made good his escape. On the same date, Inder Sahni filed a petition of complaint, alleging that the petitioner had committed offences under Ss. 323 and 161, Penal Code by assaulting and demanding bribe from his (Inder Salmi's) wife.
2. In view of Section 7(1), Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act 46 of 1952), the case started by Inder Sahni has been transferred for disposal to Mr. H. H. Chandra, an Assistant Sessions Judge of Muzaf-farpur, who has been appointed as a Special Judge under the aforesaid Act. The case started against the four members of the opposite party by the petitioner is pending for disposal before a Magistrate named Mr. S.P. Mukherji, at Muzaffarpur.
3. The petitioner's prayer in this application is that both the cases pending before Mr. Mukherji and Mr. Chandra should be simultaneously tried in the same Court.
4. Appearing in support of the application, Mr. K.D. De has urged that the two cases are counter cases and they should both be tried in one Court as a case and its counter cases are practically one case. He has relied upon a decision of a single Judge of the Madras High Court in -- 'Ramakrishnayya v. The State', 1954 Mad 442 (AIR V 41) (A). In that case, Ramaswami J. has observed as follows:
"Where there is a fight between two rival factions which gives rise to the complaint and counter-complaint it is a generally recognised rule that both the cases should be tried by the same Judge, in quick succession though with different Assessors and Jurors; the first case should be tried to a conclusion and the verdict of the Jury or the opinion of the Assessors be taken. The Judge should, however, postpone the judgment in that case till he has heard the second case to a conclusion and he should then pronounce judgments separately in each case."
In the first place, this is not a case where there was admittedly a fight between the two parties. The petitioner has alleged that he had arrested Inder Sahni, who was subsequently rescued by others. On the other hand, Inder Sahni has alleged in his complaint that the petitioner did not meet him but met his wife and assaulted her as well as demanded bribe from her. Thus there is no incident or occurrence which is admitted by both parties to have taken place.
In the case which was before Ramaswami J. of the Madras High Court, there was admittedly a fight between the two parties. Each party, However, gave a different version as to how the occurrence took place. In the case before me, there is nothing to show that the two cases can be properly described as counter cases. That being so, the observations of Ramaswami J, have no application in this case.
5. In the second place, the rule that counter-cases should ordinarily be tried by one and the same Court is not a rule which is, or can conveniently be, universally adhered to. I may give some instances. The allegations made by one party make out a case which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The allegations made in the counter-case make out a case which is triable by a Magistrate. It will be quite inconvenient if the latter case be transferred to the Sessions Court to be tried along with the former.
The present case itself may be given as another instance. The case against the petitioner is triable by the Special Judge appointed under Act 46 of 1952. The case started by him is triable at the best by the Court of Session or a Magistrate of the first or second class. It will not be desirable to direct that that case should be committed for trial to the Court of Session irrespective of whether the Magistrate in Seisin of the case does or does not find sufficient grounds for committing the accused persons. The rule is one of the convenience and provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be Ignored in order to give effect to it.
6. In the circumstances mentioned above, St seems to me that there is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.