KRISHNA TUKARAM JADHAV Vs. SECRETARY TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BOMBAY STATE
LAWS(BOM)-1954-10-8
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on October 01,1954

KRISHNA TUKARAM JADHAV Appellant
VERSUS
SECRETARY TO THE CHIEF MINISTER, BOMBAY STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

APARAO [REFERRED TO]
STATE V. NANDLAL [REFERRED TO]
BARKAT VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: PUNAMCHAND MANEKLAL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DRUGS INSPECTOR VS. CHIMANLAL AND CO [LAWS(MPH)-1965-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
SINDHI NATHURAM ATMARAM VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1957-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
LOKNATH MISHRA VISHWESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1962-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
MALKIAT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1998-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG THAKUR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA PRASAD VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1959-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
HARDIK BHARATBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-12-1255] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)KRISHNA Tukaram Jadhav and Sambhu Krishna Jadhav--whom I will hereafter refer to as the petitioners,--addressed a letter in the form of a petition dated 2-9-1952, to the Chief Minister of Bombay and to the Minister of Civil 'supplies, Bombay. In that petition they made certain allegations against one Vithoba Laxman Sakpaj. It is unnecessary to set out the details of those allegations. Thereafter the Secretary to the Chief Minister, Bombay State, filed a complaint in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, charging the
"petitioners with having committed an offence under Section 182 read with Section 34, Penal Code. It was the case of the complainant that both the petitioners gave false information to the Chief Minister, 'with the intention of causing thereby the Chief Minister to proceed against and punish Vithoba Laxman Sakpal or with the intention to cause the Chief Minister to use his lawful power as public servant to the injury or annoyance of Vithoba Laxman Sakpal. ' The complainant produced before the Court an authority signed by the Chief Minister of Bombay to the following effect: "i hereby direct and authorise my Secretary Shri V. Y. Tonpe to file a complaint under Section 182 read with Section 34, Penal Code against Krishna Tuka-ram Jadhav and Sambhu Krishna Jadhav for giving false information to me against Vithoba Laxman Sakpal by presenting application dated 2-91952. "
The learned Magistrate entertained the complaint and proceedings were started against the two petitioners. After evidence was partially recorded, counsel for the accused raised an objection that the proceedings before the Court were without jurisdiction as there was no complaint on record of the Chief Minister who alone could file a complaint tor the offence charged. The learned Magistrate held that the expression complaint' in Section 195, Criminal P. C. was not used in any technical sense as defined in Section 4 of the Code. In the view of the learned Magistrate:
"as the Chief Minister had in writing directed and authorised his Secretary by name to file a complaint under Section 182 read with Section 34, Penal Code against the accused by name for giving false information etc. , it was obvious that the Chief Minister intended that those persons should be punished and that the prosecution was not really at the instance of some other person. "
The learned Magistrate accordingly overruled the contention and directed the case to, proceed. Krishna Tukaram has come to this Court in revision against that order.
(2.)THE order passed by the learned trial Magistrate is an interlocutory order and normally this Court does not interfere with proceedings before subordinate criminal Courts at an interlocutory stage. But in this case it appears that the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate have been entertained by him without jurisdiction. On the view that I take the proceedings should not be pennitted to run their normal course and an order either of conviction or acquittal should be recorded before entertaining an application in revi-sion it would involve the two accused into considerable trouble aud harassment if the proceedings in the Court of first instance are not quashed at this stage. In my judgment the proceedings appear to have been entertained without jurisdiction.
(3.)SECTION 195 (1) (a), Criminal P. C. provides:
"no Court shall take cognizance-- (a) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188, Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. "
in the present case it is conceded that there is no complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. Evidently the offence with which the accused are charged is the offence of giving to the Chief Minister of the State of Bombay, who is a public servant, information which the accused knew or believed to be false and intended thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that they would thereby cause, the public servant to do or omit to do something which the public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which the information was given were known by them, or to use the lawful power of the public servant to tha injury or annoyance of any person. The information having been given to the Chief Minister, by reason of Section 195 (1) (a), Criminal P. C. the learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the proceedings, only on a complaint in writing by the Chief Minister. Now, the complaint filed in this case on which the prosecution has been commenced against the accused is a complaint by the Secretary to the Chief Minister and not by the Chief Minister himself. When the Legislature has provided that the Court shall not take cognizance of certain offences except on the complaint in writing of the public servant or of some other public servant to whom he is. subordinate, it is not a sufficient compliance with Section 195 (1) (a) that the proceedings are commenced on a complaint in writing which is merely authorised by the public servant. In my judgment before proceedings can be entertained under Section 182, Penal Code, the public servant to whom the information relating to which a charge is made has been given must make a complaint in writing, or a complaint in writing must be made by some other public servant to whom such public servant is subordinate.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.