R GOVINDASWAMY Vs. STATE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MADANAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the accused in C. C. No. 264 of 1958 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati. His revision petition is directed against the order made on 13-12-1958 by the Sessions Judge, Chitoor, in C.R.P. No. 13 of 1958 filed under Sections 435 and 436 Criminal Procedure Code by which the case was remanded for further inquiry in the light of the observations in the order and was transferred to the Principal District Munsif-cum-first Class Magistrate, Tirupati for disposal according to law.

(2.) The case was instituted on a charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Madanapalli. It appears that the petitioner was the Examiner of Copies in the Court of the District Munsif. Madanapalli and that he entered the Chambers of the Dist. Munsif at about 1 p.m., on 18-1-1958 for some official work. The District Munsif objected to his having entered the room without prior permission, sent him away from the room and a little later found fault with him again for his conduct. Subsequently, while the District Munsiff was going home from the court house at about 3 p.m., the petitioner is alleged to have hit him on the back of his neck with a sandal. The charge sheet stated that the petitioner committed the offence as a consequence of the chiding given to him by the District Munsif in the discharge-of his official duty and was punishable under Sections 332 and 355 Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, however, framed a charge on 6-10-1958 against the petitioner only under Section 355. Indian Penal Code. The Assistant Public Prosecutor applied to the Magistrate on 15-10-1958 to add a charge under Section 822, Indian Penal Code, but the Magistrate dismissed the application. Thereupon the Circle Inspector filed C.R.P. No. 13 of 1958 under Sections 435 and 436 Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Judge, Chittoor for setting aside the order of Implied discharge made on 6-10-1958 and for directing that an additional charge under Section 332. Indian Penal Code be framed. On that petition, the learned Sessions Judge made the order mentioned above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the position that the Magistrates action on 6-10-1958 amounted to an implied discharge in respect of the alleged offence under Section 322. Indian Penal Code. Some of their criticisms against the proceedings of the learned Sessions Judge were based on a misconception of the facts. It was urged that the entries in the docket of C.R.P. 13 of 1958 did not mention that the records were called for from the Magistrate and that the question arises whether a Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to make an order under Section 436. Cr. P. C. without calling for the records. But the Sessions Judge has since reported that the records were called for from the Magistrate before the order was passed. If follows that the question posed does not arise for consideration. Another criticism was that the learned Sessions Judge who made the order in question was in the position of a complainant, as he had sent the District Munsits complaint to the police and that his subsequent interference in the matter under Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code was contrary to the principles of natural justice. I do not think that a Magistrate, by merely forwarding a complaint for investigation by a police, is hit by the principle No man shall sit as a judge in his own cause. Indeed, the Criminal Procedure Code expressly provides in Section 202 for a Magistrate directing an investigation by a police officer and that does not disqualify the Magistrate from trying the case. Apart from this, the record shows that the Sessions Judge, who forwarded the complaint to the police, was Sri R. V. Sitharama Rao. But the Sessions Judge, who subsequently heard and disposed of the matter under Sections 435 and 436. Criminal Procedure Code was Sri B. Rama Lal Kishen. On the facts, this line of criticism also does not arise for consideration.