Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.73 seconds)Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Public Prosecutor vs Ratnavelu Chetty on 24 February, 1926
12. The main question which arises for determination in the instant case would be whether proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Code would be applicable in the instant case, where the case has been instituted on a complaint filed by the Customs Officer in the Court of the Judicial Magistrare, or, as to whether proviso to Section 200 of the Code would be applicable. No direct case law has been cited on this point, except that support was sought from a Full Bench authority in Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetty, AIR 1926 Mad 865 : (27 Cri LJ 1031), wherein, it was observed that "report of police officer mentioned in Section 190(1)(b) is not confined to a report of a cognizable offence. It includes even the police report in a non-cognizable case", and his examination on oath was not necessary. In the instant case it was not disputed before me that the Customs Officer, who, filed "the present complaint, was a public servant, and, was acting in discharge of his official duties, while, initiating the present proceedings. Thus, in view of Clause (a) to proviso to Section 200 of the Code, it was not obligatory for the Magistrate to examine the complainant, or, the witnesses cited by him in the complaint. As far as proviso to Section 202 of the Code is concerned, it is quite apparent that the provisions of Section 202 of the Code would be applicable only if the Magistrate, after receipt of the complaint of an offence which he is authorised to take cognizance, may either inquire into the case himself or, direct the investigation to be made by the Police Officer himself, or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether, or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
Section 201 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 208 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 209 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 306 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Suraj Parkash Kapur, Etc on 4 May, 1961
9. On behalf of the petitioner it was mainly contended that it was obligatory for the Magistrate, who had taken cognizance in this case, under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Code, to call upon the complainant to produce all the witnesses, and, examine them on oath, as the offence involved in the complaint was triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Reliance in this respect was placed on the Single Bench Authorities of this Court in State v. Kapur Singh, 1979 Pun LR 161 and Charanjit Singh v. Shingara Singh, 1.979 CLR 261, as well as, Division Bench authority of this Court in Raj Pal Sood v. Ravinder Nath Vohra, 1977 PLR 674, holding that proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Code provides in a mandatory form that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. The language of this section makes it manifest that the provision is mandatory, and, the Magistrate holding commitment proceedings under the Code has no option, except to comply with this provision and call upon the complainant to produce all his evidence before him in the case which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. All these authorities relate prior to amendment of Section 209 of the Code made in the year 1978.