MANGAL DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIARABIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications arise out of the same proceeding and have been consolidated and heard together and this judgment will govern both. It will, however, be more convenient to deal with them separately.

(2.) Cr. Rev. 922: By this application the petitioners challenged the validity of the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Begusarai, dated 1-7-57 summoning the accused persons to take their trial for the offences under Section 379 I. P. C. on the ground that this order was incompetent and without jurisdiction because it was passed without considering the report of the officer to whom the case had been referred for enquiry. The facts of the prosecution case are briefly as follows: The complainant. Mt. Rabia filed a complaint on 13-5-57 before the Sub-divisional Officer, Begusarai, against the petitioners alleging inter alia that on 1-3-57 the petitioner uprooted the mustard plants of her field and in spite of her protest took away mustard worth Rs. 10. On 27-3-57 the learned Sub-divisional Officer examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and referred the case to the Sub-Registrar of Teghra for enquiry and report by 27-4-57. The Sub-Registrar, Teghra did not hold the enquiry though the date for submission of the enquiry report was extended from time to time. Eventually, he returned the paper to the Sub-divisional Officer without report. On 1-7-57 the Sub-divisional Officer summoned the petitioners without further enquiry on the ground that the enquiry by the Sub-Registrar was sufficiently delayed and further enquiry by another officer would be improper and result in waste of time. Against this order, the petitioners moved the Sessions Judge. It is alleged that two points were pressed before the Sessions Judge, first that after having referred the case for enquiry the learned Sub-divisional Officer should not have summoned the petitioners before the case was enquired into, and, secondly that the petitioner, Mr. Sundari, should be allowed to be represented by a lawyer, and her personal appearance should be dispensed with. It appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 28-9-57 that he has not dealt with the first question; he only considered the second question and disposed of the application. Against that order the petitioners have come up in revision. It has been contended on their behalf that the incompetence of the order of the Sub-divisional Officer summoning the petitioners before the receipt of the report of the enquiring officer was raised before the Sessions Judge, but he did not pass any order thereon.

(3.) I assume for the purpose of this case that this point was raised before the learned Sessions Judge. The question is whether the order of the Sub-divisional Officer summoning the petitioners is illegal and should be set aside.