Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1906 DIGILAW 109 (CAL)

Fani Bhushan Banerjee v. F. E. Kemp

1906-05-18

body1906
JUDGMENT Mitra, J. - This rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Backergunge for showing cause why his order, dated the 17th April 1906, dismissing the complaint of the Petitioner should not be set aside and a further enquiry directed. No cause has been shown and the statements in the verified petition presented to us and the affidavit in support of it have not been contradicted. The petition of complaint was lodged on the 17th April in the Court of Mr. J.K. Ghose, the Senior Deputy Magistrate at Barisal. He received the petition and recorded the sworn statement of the Petitioner as required by sec. 200 of the Code but instead of himself passing an order either dismissing the complaint or issuing summonses on the accused, he submitted the matter to the District Magistrate. In doing so, he acted in contravention of the law. If he was not competent to take cognizance of the case, he should have returned the petition of complaint for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect and he ought not to have examined the complainant on oath. It appears, however, that he was authorized to receive petitions of complaint and to examine complainants on oath though as regards a particular class of cases of which the present case was one he was directed by the District Magistrate not to pass orders but to submit them to the District Magistrate himself for orders. Such a direction of the District Magistrate is clearly illegal. On the same day the District Magistrate passed an order dismissing the complaint. He did so, sitting in his private room and without giving the complainant or his pleader an opportunity of being heard. This was also improper. The order passed by the Deputy Magistrate as well as that passed by the District Magistrate were not warranted by the Criminal Procedure Code and we accordingly set them aside. The Deputy Magistrate should now take up the complaint of the Petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. We have been asked by Mr. Chaudhuri, Counsel for the Petitioner, to transfer the complaint to some other District for a proper order. We cannot do so at the present stage of the proceedings, especially as the rule we issued was limited to the order by the District Magistrate.