SHARDA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 561-A of the Code of criminal Procedure by Sharda Prasad Mishra, Sub Inspector of Police, Jabalpur, praying that the proceedings pending against him before Shri S. N. Tiwari, additional District Magistrate (Executive), Jabalpur in Misc. Cr. C. No. 421 of 69 wherein the learned Additional District Magistrate has issued a show cause notice against the petitioner as to why he should not be convicted and punished for the offence under section 228 of the Penal Code be quashed.

(2.) THE facts in brief, giving rise to this petition are, that the District magistrate, Jabalpur, had ordered a magisterial enquiry on 19-8-1969 in regard to an alleged incident of marpit, said to have taken place at the Naudara bridge, on the evening of 18-8-1969, between the petitioner and one Ravi Nanda of jabalpur, which resulted in injuries to the latter, and this enquiry was entrusted by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, to Shri S. N. Tiwari, Additional District magistrate (Executive), Jabalpur. During the proceedings, the question of of contempt arose and after service of the notice as aforesaid for proceeding against the petitioner for contempt of Court, the petitioner raised two objections and the first was, that there was no judicial proceeding before the learned additional District Magistrate (E), and secondly, that the learned magistrate could not proceed legally against him under section 480 of the Code of criminal Procedure, as he had taken no action against him on the last date of hearing.

(3.) THE learned Additional District Magistrate (E) passed a detailed order on 27-6-1970 to the effect that the enquiry before him was a judicial enquiry and he was competent to proceed against the petitioner under section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purposes of contempt under section 228 of the Penal Code. The reasoning given by the learned Additional district Magistrate is, that the magisterial enquiry that he was conducting was under the statutory provisions of law, and he has referred to Regulation no. 241-D contained in Part II of the Chapter 8 of the Police Regulations, and also to the fact that during the enquiry he had taken evidence of the parties on oath, and he was invested with the magisterial powers. He had relied on the ruling reported in Emperor v. Kuna Sah (1906 28 ILR All 89)