N.K.Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.)By this revision the accused petitioners have challenged the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 2973 of 1988 and particularly regarding the order by which the cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, being order No. 14 dated 11.1.93 in that proceeding.
(2.)The short background of the case is that the opposite party No. 1 herein, who is the appropriate officer, made a complaint before the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, and the complaint was forwarded to the police for treating the same as an F.I.R. and to investigate the matter. After completion of the investigation a final report was submitted. Being aggrieved by that final report, the opposite party No. 1 herein, the defacto-complainant, filed a protest petition and there after the learned Magistrate directed further investigation by the D.D. Department. The matter was further investigated and thereafter the charge sheet was submitted before the court of the learned Magistrate on 9th January, 1993 but no accompanying document was placed before the learned Magistrate on the ground that those cannot be produced at that stage because copies are prepared thereform for supply as contemplated under section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The same will be apparent from order No. 13 dated 9.1.93. In view of the submission of the prosecution the next date was fixed by the learned Magistrate on 11.1.93 for orders. By order No. 14 dated 11.1.93 the learned Magistrate observed that the charge sheet rather the challan was submitted by the Investigating Officer for an offence against the accused under Sections 120B/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code on which the learned Magistrate took cognizence of the offence' and transferred the case for disposal to the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th court, Calcutta, under Section 192 of the Code.
(3.)Mr. Dilip Kumar Dutt, learned senior advocate appearing with the learned Advocate, Miss Kabita Mukherjee, for the petitioners, contended that taking cognizance on the charge sheet alone in the absence of other documents as contemplated under section 173(5) of the Code is bad in law and cannot be sustained. In support of his submission Mr. Dutt relied on three decisions, to wit, Satya Narayan Musadi v. State of Bihar reported in 1990 Cr LJ 227, Satya Ranjan Pal v. State of West Bengal reported in 96 CalWN 604 and Madchunichina Venkata Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1994 Cr LJ 257. In Satya Narayan's (supra) case the Supreme Court has held that taking cognizance only on the basis of charge sheet in the absence of other documents as contemplated under sub-section (5) of section 173 of the Code is bad in law. The same view has been expressed by this Court in Satya Ranjan Pal's case (supra) and also by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madchunichina Venkata Reddy's case (supra). On the basis of the authorities of the said decisions Mr. Dutt submitted that the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate by order No. 14 dated 11.1.93 should be set aside.
;