Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These petitions under Sections 439 and 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, respectively are directed against the order dated 26-8-1958, of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tenali, by which he took cognizance under Section 190 (1) (c), Criminal Procedure Code, of an offence under Section 353, Indian Penal Code said to have been committed by the first petitioner and of an offence under Section 355, Indian Penal Code, said to have been committed by petitioners 2 to 5 and issued summons to the petitioners posting the case to 13-9-1958. The facts are briefly these : On 25-2-1958, the Revenue Inspector of Duggirala. Sri V. Govindarajulu, and the Village Munsiff of Chinnapalem, Sri V. Narayana, reported to the Tahsildar of Tenali that when they attempted that day to collect arrears of land revenue at Chinnapalem, they were assaulted by the petitioners.

On 26-2-1958, the Tahsildar made a preliminary enquiry examining witnesses and found that there was a prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 353, 355, 356 and 146, Indian Penal Code. On 27-2-1958, he transferred the papers to the Station House Officer, Duggirala "for registering a case and for conducting necessary investigation and such further action as he may think fit." The Sub-Inspector of Duggirala after investigation submitted a final report dated 22-6-1958, under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tenali, stating that the allegations against the petitioners were partly false and that the evidence indicated only the commission of a non-cognisable offence under Section 352, Indian Penal Code.

But a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of any offence even on his suspicion. In Queen-Empress v. Sham Lall, ILK 14 Cat 707 (FB), construing the similar words in Section 191 of the Coda of 1882, the learned Judges held that a Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance on suspicion of an offence under Section 211, India Penal Code, disclosed in a police report, although the report stated that no such charge could be made. There were ample materials here before the Magistrate to support his suspicion that offences under Sections 355 and 355, Indian Penal Code, had been really committed. It is therefore impossible to uphold the petitioners' contention that the Magistrate had exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 190 (1), Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The learned counsel finally contended that as the Tahsildar did not choose to press the matter before the Magistrate, the order should be set aside err the ground that a sound judicial discretion was not exercised by the Magistrate. But the Magistrate after perusing the record has found that the materials prima facie disclosed offence under Sections 353 and 355, Indian Penal Code, and that the Station House-Officer's reasoning was unsatisfactory. The provisions of Section 191, Criminal Procedure Code, are sufficient to safeguard the interests of the petitioners and I see no valid reasons to stifle the judicial inquiry against them. The situation is entirely different from that in ILR 14 Cal 707 (FB), where the complainant was not heard before he was sought to be prosecuted under Section 211, Indian Penal Code.