SIDHINATH LAHKAR Vs. STATE
LAWS(GAU)-1970-6-4
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 05,1970

Sidhinath Lahkar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.K. Goswami, .J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against conviction Under Sections 323 / 448, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of fine of Rs. 300/ - on each of the petitioners, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month each. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence, agreed with the findings of the trial Court and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
(2.) THE only point raised by Mr. Kataky, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the entire trial is vitiated as the trial court did not itself take cognizance of the offences Under Section 190(l)(a), Cr.PC, and there, after follow the procedure laid down in Chapter XVI Chapter XVII and ultimately the provisions laid down Under Section 252 and the subsequent sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. The material facts which are necessary to appreciate the above submission are as follows: -A complaint was filed against the accused under Ss. 448, 325, 321 and 379, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Gauhati on 30 -1 -1965. After receipt of the complaint, the Additional District Magistrate sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate for disposal. The learned Magistrate, on receipt of the same, directed the officer -in -charge of the Rangiya Police Station to register a case and to report in final form after investigation. This original complaint was later on received at the police station and registered as Police Station Case No. 6 (2) 65 Under Sections 448, 325, 324 and 379, IPC, on 8 -2 -1965 and the Police after investigation submitted charge -sheet against both the accused petitioners Under Sections 448 and 325, IPC. Thus the complaint registered as first information report ended in submission of charge -sheet dated 4 -4 -1965 by the police. Meanwhile it appears if from the order -sheet that the accused persons surrendered before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) on 16 -2 -1965 and the learned Magistrate admitted them to bail with direction to appear before the Officer in charge of the Rangiya Police Station in connection with the case, which has already been registered. Ultimately the charge -sheet was taken cognizance of by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) on 19 -4 -1965 and the case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate for disposal, who followed the procedure as laid down Under Section 251A, Cr.PC
(3.) THE learned Counsel contends that the complaint was taken the cognizance of by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) on receipt of the same from the complainant and therefore he had no powers of transferring the case to the Judicial Magistrate, who again had no powers to send the complaint, without taking cognizance, to the police for investigation.;


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