SMT. BINAPANI BORA AND ORS. Vs. SHRI NARENDRA BORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is required to be determined in this proceeding is as (sic)when an enquiry under Station 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be said to have commenced. The importance of determining the date of commencement lies in the foot that Sub -section (6), if an enquiry it not completed within a (sic) of six months from the date of its commencement, it terminated, unless for special reasons to be recorded in (sic) the Magistrate otherwise directs. As per the proviso, sure any person has been kept la detention pending enquiry, (sic) period cannot also be extended beyond six months. The (sic) of determining the point of commencement of the enquiry to relevant when order for interim bond is paused under Section (3).

(2.) THERE has been a difference of opinion among the different High Courts of the country on the question as to when enquiry can be said to have commenced. The majority of High Courts which includes those of Bombay, Patna, Raja -Delhi and Madhya Pradesh have taken the view that of appearance of the person sought to be preceded against the starting point of the enquiry. The Calcutta view is that enquiry commences when the opposite party challenges the Sections made against him or refuses to admit the same, or a show cause against his accusation. As per the (sic) High Court, however, the enquiry commences when the Magistrate proceeds to ascertain the truth of the allegations by petition of a Judicial mind, that is, when the Magistrate in a legal way to put the allegations to test for find -(sic) whether they are factually correct or not.

(3.) THE High Courts which have accepted that the enquiry commences from the date of appearance have really held so because, Wording to them, all summons trial commence with the reading but of the particulars of the offence to the accused when he appears or is brought before the Magistrate whereupon, under Section 251, the Court is required to explain the particulars of the offence. Under Section 112 of the Code also, the Court is to read over and explain the substance of the order to the person if he is present in the Court: If he is not so present, a summon or warrant may be issued, and evidently when the person appears or is brought, he has to be explained the substance of the order which has been passed under Section 111. The latest decision accepting this view is that of the Delhi High Court in J.C. Mehta v. State : 1982 Cri. L.J. 1488. As it has made reference to a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court. It would be appropriate to know the reasons given by the Full Bench in Sita Ram Singh v. State : AIR 1980 Pat 257, In Kill case the majority held that the enquiry commences with date the opposite party appears in the Court, whereas according to the minority some further step has to be taken to enquire into the truth of the opinion before enquiry can be said to have commenced. The majority have taken the aforesaid view because it has, been held the decisions noted by it that in a, summons case, the trial begins when the accused is brought before the Magistrate. This what was stated in this regard, in paragraph 5: