Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

355. A complaint of the incident was lodged with the police. Investigation was made and Charge-sheet was submitted in the court of the Judicial Magistrate at Alibag against both the accused for offences alleged to have been committed by them under sections 353 and 355 read with section 34 of the Code. On perusal of the papers in accordance with section 251 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and after hearing the arguments the Magistrate found that Shri Antulay, being a Minister, was a public servant. In that capacity he was presiding over the meeting of the District Advisory Committee of Kolaba District. He, however, held that the meeting of the Committee was illegal because it was not convened at the instance of the Commissioner of the Division as required by the Rules. He also held that the appellant who was accused no. 1, at the most, had prepared to assault the Minister and not actually assaulted or used criminal force. The appellant was discharged by the Magistrate in relation to the charge under section 353, but a charge under section 355 read with section 511 was framed against him His brother, accused no. 2, was however completely exonerated and dis- charged.

Two revisions were filed before the Sessions Judge, Kolaba- One by the State and the other by the appellant. The State wanted charges to be framed against the appellant under sections 353 and 355 and also against accused no. 2. The appellant, however, wanted the Sessions Judge to quash the charge framed against him under section 355/ 511 of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the State in part and dismissed the one filed by the appellant. Be directed the framing of charges against the appellant under both the sections, viz. 353 and 355 of the Code. The discharge of accused no. 2 was, however, maintained. The matter was taken further in revision before the Bombay High Court by the appellant only. The High Court has directed the framing of the charge against the appellant both under section 353 and 355 of the Code. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(5)That the Judicial Magistrate committed an error of law in treating the Charge-Sheet as a complaint and framing the charge against the appellant for a non-cognizable offence under section 355/511 of the Code.

The decision on the last point urged on behalf of the appellant would have been necessitated provided the argument advanced on his behalf in relation to the charge of the cognizable offence under section 353 of the Code would have been well-founded and correct; otherwise not. Since in our opinion it is not so we do not deal with the lastpoint and take up the discussion of the first four points together, as really speaking, they are all off-shoots of one and one point only, namely, whether while presiding over the meeting of the Advisory Committee the Minister was executing or discharging his duty as a public servant.