Ratti Ram Agarwala v. State Of Bihar — 1959 DIGILAW 152 (PAT)

Judgment Sahai, J. 1. The facts of this case are rather peculiar. The petitioners have come up in revision against the filing of a complaint against them for offences under Sections 211, 182, 211/109, 2-11/114, 182/109, 181/114, 193, 194 and 195 of the Penal Code. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal under Sec. 476B, has given the facts in detail, I will mention them briefly. 3. Rati Ram Agarwala, petitioner No. 1, lodged a first information report at Katibar Police Station on the llth March, 1952, against Sheo Bhagwan and others, alleging that they had kidnapped his minor nephew named Jainarayan with a view to commit his murder from the house in mahalla Bari Bazar of Katihar Town. The Katihar police, thereupon, registered Case No. 14(3) of 1952 under sections 323, 364/34 and 364/109 of the Penal Code. On 14-3-1952, a dead body was found hanging from a mango tree in village Durgapur, near Semapur, at a distance of about 4 or 5 miles from Katihar. On the next day, i. e., 15-3-1952, Rati Ram himself and Mt. Saraswati Devi, petitioner No. 7, who is the mother of Jainarayan, identified the body as that of Jainarayan. It was later discovered, however, that the body was that of an adult Santal servant of a mistry of Durgapur, and was not that of a boy aged about 16 years as Jainarayan was. After investigation the police submitted final report, stating that the case was maliciously false, but there was no sufficient evidence for prosecution under Sec.211. Katihar was under the jurisdiction of the Sadar Sub Divisional Magistrate of Purnea at that time, and he accepted the final report on the 1st May, 1952. 4. Rati Ram filed a protest petition on the 16th April, 1952, and this was treated as a petition of complaint. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate examined him on solemn affirmation on 23-6-1952. The complaint was originally dismissed; but, subsequently, judicial enquiry was held by a Magistrate named Mr. G.Prasad after further enquiry was ordered by the Sessions Judge. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered the report submitted by Mr. Prasad, and, by his order dated 16-1-1954, dismissed the complaint again. 5. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate examined him on solemn affirmation on 23-6-1952. The complaint was originally dismissed; but, subsequently, judicial enquiry was held by a Magistrate named Mr. G.Prasad after further enquiry was ordered by the Sessions Judge. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered the report submitted by Mr. Prasad, and, by his order dated 16-1-1954, dismissed the complaint again. 5. Sheo Bhagwan, one of the accused in Rati Rams case filed an application on 28-5-1952, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for filing a complaint against the petitioner and he renewed the prayer made in that application by another application which he filed on 6-2-1954. On 1-5-1954, a new Sub Division of Katihar carne into existence under notification No. A/J1-1010/54P. G. 734 dated 24-4-1954, published at page 1294, Part II in the Bihar Gazette, dated 28-4-1954. 6. Sheo Bhagwans application was placed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Katihar on 21-6-1954; but he sent the record to the Sadar Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Purnca. Thereafter, Jainarayan was himself recovered and was produced in custody on 27-7-1954, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Katihar who recorded his statement under Sec.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. On 22-12-1954, the Sadar Sub-Divisional Magistrate prepared a note to be put up before the District Magistrate for transfer of the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Katihar on the ground of expediency. The District Magistrate, by his order dated 24-12-1954, transferred the case accordingly. Subsequently, Sheo Bhagwan filed an application before the District Magistrate for re-transfer of the case to Purnea Sadar. A point raised in support of that application was that the Sadar Sub-Divisional Magistrate alone could deal with the proceeding under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the petitioners had committed the alleged offence of perjury, etc, in that Magistrates Court; but, in view of the fact that it was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Katihar who had come to have territorial jurisdiction over the place oi occurrence alleged by Ratti Ram in his first information report and petition of complaint, the District Magistrate thought that it was that Sub-Divisional Magistrate who had jurisdiction to proceed under Sec. 476. On this basis, he dismissed the application for transfer. Thereafter, the proceeding continued before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Katihar, and he submitted the complaint in question against the petitioners on the 8th/9th February 1959. 8. On this basis, he dismissed the application for transfer. Thereafter, the proceeding continued before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Katihar, and he submitted the complaint in question against the petitioners on the 8th/9th February 1959. 8. An appeal under Sec. 476B was filed before the Sessions Judge of Purnea. The Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, dismissed it by his order dated 29-6-1957. Hence, the petitioners have come up to this Court. 9. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mrs, Lall lias urged six points. Her first point is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Katihar is not the successor-in-office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Purnea Sadar who dismissed the complaint on 16-1-Z954, and hence he had no jurisdiction to file the complaint against the petitioners. The second point is that the District Magistrate erred in law in transferring a proceeding under Sec. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the Court concerned to another Court, and hence his order of transfer dated the 24th December 1954, is illegal. Her third point is that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in thinking that the District Magistrates order dated 24-12-1954, is an order under Sec. 5.59(2) of the Code, and that neither that order nor the order dated 21-3-1956, is an order under that section. The fourth point is that no prima facie case of any offence has been made out against any of the petitioners except Rati Ram, petitioner No. 1. The fifth point is that a complaint for an offence under Sec.182 could only be filed by the police officer who investigated the case or one of his superior police officers and not by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. The last point which learned counsel has urged is that no prima facie case of an offence under Sec.193, 194 or 195 has been made out against any of the petitioners because there was no proceeding in a Court in relation to which any of the petitioners can be said to have given false evidence or fabricated false evidence. 10. I take up for consideration the first three points which Mrs. Lall has raised. The first point raises the question as to whether the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Katihar can he held to be a successor Court of the Sadar Subdivisional Magistrate of Purnea for the purposes of this case. 10. I take up for consideration the first three points which Mrs. Lall has raised. The first point raises the question as to whether the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Katihar can he held to be a successor Court of the Sadar Subdivisional Magistrate of Purnea for the purposes of this case. In his order dated the 21st March, 1956, the learned District Magistrate has observed : It is true that the Court before whom the original proceeding lay was the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, but that was so because at the time when the proceeding was instituted the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, had also got jurisdiction over Katihar thana where the incident was alleged to have taken place. It is, therefore, clear that the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, had dealt with the proceeding because that Court had jurisdiction in the matter. Subsequently, the place where occurrence was alleged to have taken place got transferred to the jurisdiction of another Sub-divisional Officer, namely, the Subdivisional Officer, Katihar. It follows that the Subdivisional Officer, Katihar, being the successor of the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, in respect of the particular place, has the necessary jurisdiction to deal with all such matters that may have arisen in the Court of the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, when the latter had jurisdiction over that place." The learned Sessions Judge appears to have accepted this conclusion; but, in my judgment, both he and the District Magistrate have failed to appreciate the correct legal position. 11 Sec.195(1) (b) of the Code provide that no Court can take cognizance of an offence under several sections, including Sections 193, 194, 195 and 211, which is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in a Court without the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. Sec. 476 of the Code provides the procedure and the circumstances in which a Court can file a complaint relating to an offence, in, or in relation to, any proceeding in that Court, It clearly follows from these provisions that the offences referred to in Sec.195(1) (b) are not committed against the Judge or Magistrate who was the presiding officer of the Court at the time when the alleged offence was committed in or in relation to, a proceeding in that Court; but they arc committed against the Court itself. A successor of that Judge or Magistrate is, therefore, perfectly competent to file a complaint; but the Court must be the same. No Court other than the one in, or in relation to, a proceeding in which Court the offence in question was committed can file the complaint. 12. It is irrelevant to consider under whose territorial jurisdiction the original offence was committed. That would merely determine the Court in which the complainant should have filed his complaint. The offences for which the present complaint has been filed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Katihar against the petitioners were not committed in Katihar: they were committed in the Court of the Sadar Subdivisionsl Magistrate of Purnea. It is true that the new subdivision of Katihar has been created with, effect from the 1st May, 1954, and, from that date, the Subdivisional Magistrate of that subdivision has jurisdiction to deal with all cases which arise within its area. It is not possible, however, to hold that the Subdivisional Magistrate of Katihar has come to have jurisdiction even to deal with offences which were committed in, or in relation to, a proceeding in the Court of the Sadar Subdivisional Magistrate of Purnea. The latter Court still exists, and had its own presiding officer. It is that Court which is competent to file a complaint relating to an offence covered by Sec.195 (1) (b) which was previously committed in, or in relation to, a proceeding in that Court. 13. The view which I have expressed above receives support from a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Juggut Chunder V/s. Kasi Chunder, ILR 6 Cal 440. That was a case under the old Code (Act X) of 1872. The District Judge of Pubna sanctioned prosecution under sec. 13. The view which I have expressed above receives support from a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Juggut Chunder V/s. Kasi Chunder, ILR 6 Cal 440. That was a case under the old Code (Act X) of 1872. The District Judge of Pubna sanctioned prosecution under sec. 468 of that Code, though the offence in question was alleged to have been committed by making a false allegation in a verified petition for the foreclosure of a mortgage filed in the District Court of Rajshahye at a time when the judgeship of Raj-shahye included the area later placed within the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Pubna, Garth, C. J. observed: "The District Judge of Pubna appears to be under the impression that, because the land, which was the subject of the mortgage, has since been transferred to the jurisdiction of Pubna, the offence with which Kasi is charged must also be considered as having been committed before the District Court of Pubna. But this is clearly a mistake. The question is not within what jurisdiction the mortgaged property is now situate, but before what Court the offence was committed; and there is no doubt that the offence (if any) was committed before the District Court of Rajshahye. I think, therefore, that, upon this ground alone, the sanction given by the Judge of Pubna is illegal." 14. Reliance may also be placed upon Maneklal Garbaddas, In re, AIR 1927 Bom 47. The facts of that case were similar to those of the present case. The perjury in question in that case was committed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad. Subsequently, Kaira District was taken out of Ahmedabad Sessions Division, and was created a new sessions division. It was the Sessions Judge of Kaira who filed the complaint for the offence of perjury committed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad on the ground that the territory in respect of which the original offence was said to have been committed was then under his territorial jurisdiction. Their Lordships held that the Sessions Judge of Kaira had no jurisdiction to file the complaint on the ground that the Court contemplated under Sections 195 and 476 was the Court before which the offence was committed. 15. In view of the reasons given above, I agree with Mrs. Their Lordships held that the Sessions Judge of Kaira had no jurisdiction to file the complaint on the ground that the Court contemplated under Sections 195 and 476 was the Court before which the offence was committed. 15. In view of the reasons given above, I agree with Mrs. Lall that the Subdivisional Magistrate of Katihar was not competent to file the complaint in question against the petitioners as he cannot be held to be the successor-in-office of the Sadar Subdivisional Magistrate of Purnea for the purposes of this case. 16. In my judgment, the second point urged by Mrs. Lall is also well-founded. The order of the District Magistrate dated the 24th December, 1954, is to the following effect: "Withdrawn from the file of S. D. O. Sadar and transferred to that S.D.O. Katihar for disposal". This order is clearly an order under Sec. 528 of the Code. I have already shown that it must be the Court concerned which should file a complaint as contemplated under Sections 195(1) (b) and 473 of the Code. No superior Court can, by an order of transfer of the case to another Court confer jurisdiction upon the transferee Court to file a complaint. It is needless to discuss this at any length because a similar question arose before the Supremo Court in Kuldip Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 391 , and their Lordships have held that a Court to which the matter was transferred by a superior Court had no jurisdiction to file a complaint as it was neither the original Court, which tried the suit, nor the appellate Court. 17 The third point raised by Mrs. Lall is also correct, and must prevail. The District Magistrates order dated the 24th December, 1954, is manifestly an order of transfer and not an order under Sec. 559(2), I have quoted the relevant portion of his order dated the 21st March, 1956. It is obvious that, in that order, he has come to a decision that the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Katihar is the successor-in-office of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Purnca Sadar in respect of the present proceeding. It is obvious that, in that order, he has come to a decision that the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Katihar is the successor-in-office of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Purnca Sadar in respect of the present proceeding. He has not, and he docs not purport to have, exercised his power under Sec. 559 (2) to determine, in case of doubt, as to "who shall, for the purposes of this Code or of any proceedings or order thereunder, be deemed to be the successor in office of the Magistrate. I have already shown that his decision is wrong, and it is unnecessary to consider the legal effect of an order under Sec. 559(2), if he had passed such an order in this case. 18. In view of my decision on the first three points, it is not necessary to decide the other points which Mrs. Lall has raised. The application must be allowed, and the complaint filed against the petitioners must be quashed. The case will now go back to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Purnea Sadar who will dispose of the proceeding under sec. 476 of the Code in accordance with law. As the case is very old, the learned Magistrate will proceed as expeditiously as he can. Untwalia, J. 19 I agree.