Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. Though the charge-sheet was dated 21.11.1997, the case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 28.11.1997 for the offence under Sections 341 and 323, I.P.C., Even though the other main offences were dropped and proceedings were dropped in respect of other 4 accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate hastened to record the plea of the accused on the same day and convicted him for the minor offences under Sections 341 and 323, I.P.C. by imposing petty fine.

22. It is held by a Division Bench of this Court in Padmini v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1993 L.W. (Crl) 487 that a Judicial Magistrate has to satisfy himself in all respects of a report submitted by the Police and he shall not be guided by the opinion of the Police alone. He shall exercise his discretion to find out as to whether the facts disclosed constitute the offence to decide what offences are made out, he shall also see the evidence and if there is such evidence against a particular accused, whether forwarded by the Police or not, may summon him to take the charge in accordance with law. In case, the materials and the proposed evidence are not adequate, the Magistrate shall order for re-investigation. The informant's position and the role at the stage of the report by the Police to the Magistrate under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. can be appreciated by a prescription in this behalf in Section 173(2)(ii), which says, "The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given."

"As per requisition of Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk circle as per reference Ist cited, the F.I.R. and the connected papers (pages 1 to 12) in Cr.No. 229 of 1997 of Devakottai Taluk Police Station is herewith transferred to Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, since the charge sheet has filed before this Court under section 341, 323, I.P.C. which is triable by Judicial Magistrate."

(g) It would appear from the reading of the order referred to above that the learned Special Judge passed an order of transfer under misconception that the F.I.R. which was registered Under section 147, 341, 355 and 323 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was investigated and the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge only for the minor offences, namely, under section 341 and 323, I.P.C., which are triable by the Judicial Magistrate and therefore, the F.I.R. and other records were transferred for trial by the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai.

(h) But, the facts are otherwise. A perusal of the other papers in the original records would reveal that the charge sheet was filed by the Inspector of police, Devakottai Taluk only on 28.11.1997 before the Judicial Magis-trate. This was taken on file in S.T.C. No. 656 of 1997 for the offences under Sections 341 and 323, I.P.C. The relevant wordings of the orders passed are as follows:

S.T.C. 656 of of 1997:-

Taken on file under Section 341 and 323 I.P.C. and posted today.

Sd/ Judicial Magistrate Devakottai."

(k) The release order would also show that there is some correction in the date. The last page of the records would give the following particulars:

"S.T.C. 656 of 1997 Complainant: Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk, Cr.No. 229 of 1997.

Accused: Subramanian Office: Under Section 341, 323 I.P.C.

Date of filing: 28.11.1997 Date of hearing: 28.11.1997 28.11.1997 Accused present, Copies furnished Questioned. Admitted the offence Accused is found guilty under section 341 I.P.C.