Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner herein is accused No. 4 in C.C. No. 30 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kadapa. The said case was transferred from I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kadapa to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa and the same was numbered as C.C.No. 2 of 2003.

2. On a complaint given by Y. Venkata Swamy, Court Attender of IV Additional District Munsif Court, Kadapa on 1-2-2003 a crime was registered in F.I.R. No. 19 of 2003 for the offence under Section 224, IPC against A-1, Shaik Mahaboob Basha. The complainant is working as Court Attender and on 27-1-2003 at 5.30 p.m., as per orders of the IV Additional Junior Court Judge, Kadapa in E.P. No. 220 of 2002 in O.S. No. 120 of 2002 the judgment-debtor was in the custody of the complainant and on 30-1-2003 at about 7.30 a.m., A-1 went to attend to nature calls and escaped from the compound wall and did not return back. The same was reported to the Assistant Nazar. A Venkat Ratnam and they have made an attempt to catch hold of the judgment-debtor, but they could not find him. As the said judgment-debtor has to be produced before the Court on 30-1-2003, the said report was given to take necessary action against the judgment-debtor. The said report was forwarded to the SHO, I town police Station, Kadapa and on the basis of the report FIR was registered and charge sheet was filed against A-1 alone, who was judgment-debtor and who had escaped from the custody of the complainant.

3. The charge sheet filed on 10-2-2003 goes to show that L.W.-1, M. Venkataswamy is working as Attender in the District Court and LW-2, Venkataratnam is the Amin of District Court, Kadapa. On a report made by LW-1 to the District Judge Kadapa, the same was forwarded to LW-4, A.S.I., Kadapa 1 Town Police Station, who registered the case and investigation was conducted by LW-5, S.I. of Police, Kadapa I town P.S. As per investigation it is revealed that a warrant of arrest was issued against the sole accused Shaik Mahaboob Bash by IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa in connection with E.P. No. 220 of 2002 in O.S. No. 120 of 2002 in which he was judgment-debtor and he was produced under warrant on 27-1-2003 and detained in the lawful custody along with other judgment-debtors and the case was adjourned to 30-1-2003. The accused along with others was handed over in the custody of LW-1, Guard Room Attender of the District Court, Kadapa. The judgment-debtor with an intention to escape from the lawful custody of the Guard on 30-1-2003 morning on the pretext of answering calls of nature went into the cheeki bushes within the compound wall of the District Court and absconded. LW-1 brought this matter to the notice of LWs 2 and 3 who made hectic efforts, but could not trace him. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested on 10-2-2003 at 9.00 a.m., and charge sheet was filed. Thus, it is stated that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 224, IPC.

4. The 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kadapa took cognizance of the offence in C.C. No. 30 of 2003 and commenced the trial and after recording the evidence of LWs-1 to 3/P.Ws. 1 to 3 on 21-3-2003 adjourned the matter to 14-4-2003. P.W. 1, Y. Venkataswamy, Attender of the District Court, Kadapa, who did not support the case of the prosecution, deposed that he knew the accused, but he did not know about the offence and the District Court Nazir Sadhu Narayana prepared Ex. P-1 report and obtained his signature. P.W. 1 turned hostile. P.W. 2, A. Venkata Ratnam and P.W. 3, Syed Ahammad Basha, working as Amins of the District Court Kadapa, did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The District Judge, Kadapa vide his official memo dated 26-2-2003 forwarded the statements recorded by him in respect of Guard Attender, Central Nazar and the judgment-debtor in Crime No. 19 of 2003 to the SHO, I Town P.S., Kadapa for information and necessary action and the SHO was also asked to intimate the result of the investigation. A copy of the said memo along with statements was also forwarded to the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for information. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa vide his official memo dated 7-4-2003 addressed a letter to the S.H.O. I Town P.S., Kadapa, directed him to look into the documents sent by the District Judge and take necessary action at the earliest and intimate the same before the next date of hearing i.e., 14-4-2003. Pursuant to the said memo dated 7-4-2003 of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa and the official memo dt. 26-2-2003 of the District Judge, Kadapa, the S.I. of Police I Town Police Station filed a memo on behalf of the prosecution under Section 173(8), Cr. P.C., Requesting the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa, to permit him to conduct further investigation by reopening the same under Section 173(8), Cr. P.C., to fix up the liability of the proposed accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The said memo was filed on 7-4-2003 itself. Pursuant to the same, the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa passed order dt. 7-4-2003 itself permitting the concerned S.H.O., I Town Police Station to file additional charge-sheet against the proposed accused under Section 173(8), Cr. P.C. As the additional charge-sheet was not filed, the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa addressed a letter dated 24-4-2003 to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, to instruct the Station House Officer, I Town P.S., Kadapa to take appropriate steps in the said crime and file report immediately before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class and also addressed a letter dt. 5-5-2003 to the District Judge, Kadapa stating that additional charge-sheet has been filed on 30-4-2003 against A-2 to A-4 for the offence punishable under Sections 182, 192, 193, 203, 211, 225-A and 406, IPC and he has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and non-bailable warrants have been issued against A-2 to A-4 and accordingly the police arrested them and produced before the Court and all the three accused were remanded to judicial custody till 14-5-2005. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa and the Chief Judicial Magistrate again took the additional charge-sheet on file for the offence under Sections 182, 193, 203, 211, 225-A and 406 and 409, IPC against A-2 to A-4 and copies of the documents were furnished to the accused and adjourned the matter to 19-5-2003 for examination of the accused under Section 239, Cr. P.C., and for framing of charges. Questioning the said filing of the additional charge-sheet, A-4 alone has filed this criminal petition.

6. The question that arises for consideration as to whether the Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet has been filed can direct the police to further investigate the matter after taking cognizance and after appearance of the accused and after examining the witnesses.

7. In the instant case, original charge-sheet was filed against A-1 alone and the cognizance of the offence was taken for the offence under Section 224, IPC against A-1 alone for escaping from the Court custody. During the course of trial, when P.Ws. 1 to 3 turned hostile, on the officials memos issued by the District Judge and the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class concerned, additional charge-sheet has been filed. I am of the opinion that a Judge shall be impartial and he cannot be a party to the investigation. No doubt the way in which P.Ws. 1 to 3 became hostile, it is a matter for taking appropriate disciplinary action against them departmentally. But the same Judge before whom the trial of the criminal case is taking place cannot direct the police to further investigate the matter. Similarly, the District Judge, who recorded the statements of the accused, Guard Attenders and Central Nazir, District Court, Kadapa, has no business to send the same to the police station concerned and to the Magistrate before whom the trial is taking place. The District Judge, being head of the District Unit, is empowered to take disciplinary action against them. Therefore, I am of the opinion that when P.Ws. 1 to 3 have turned hostile and if there are any grounds warranting taking of disciplinary action, the District Judge should have taken disciplinary action. The District Judge, Kadapa as well as the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa have exceeded their jurisdiction and the way in which they have issued the said official memos to the investigating officer directing him to file additional charge-sheet is nothing but abuse of process of law and also misuse of their powers. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this is one such case where disciplinary action requires to be taken for the high-handed action of the District Judge concerned who forwarded the said memo and the Magistrate concerned who directed the police to take action and file additional charge-sheet.