Patna High Court
Ambika Singh vs Emperor on 27 January, 1926
Equivalent citations: 96IND. CAS.651, AIR 1926 PATNA 368
JUDGMENT Kulwant Sahay, J.
1. The petitioner lodged a First Information before the Police at Ghosi on the 12th of July, 1925, charging certain persons with an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Before the Police submitted a report, the petitioner filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jehanabad on the 17th of July, 1925, praying for a local enquiry into the case by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate treated this application, as a complaint and proceeded to examine the petitioner on oath. In the meantime the Police submitted a final report, stating that the case was a false one and prayed for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. On the 13th of August, 1925, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after receipt of the Police report, summoned the petitioner under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and treated the complaint of the petitioner as a counter-case which he proposed to take up after the disposal of the case under a; 182. On the 24th of August, 1925, the petitioner prayed that he should be given an opportunity of proving his case before he was tried for an offence under Section 182; but the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the application, and also dismissed the petition of complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. On the 21st of September, 1925, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate converted the trial of the petitioner under Section 182 into an enquiry before commitment for an offence under Section 211 read with Section 302 of, the Indian Penal Code, and he has committed the petitioner to the Sessions Court for trial.
2. It is clear that the proceedings in this case have been without jurisdiction. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate could not himself enquire into the case under Section 211 read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The proper procedure to adopt was to make a complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 195 not having been complied with, the order of commitment is clearly without jurisdiction and must be set aside and the commitment quashed.
Ross, J.
3. I, agree.