STATE Vs. VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petty matters in which the Public Prosecutor has thought fit to file and appeal in the following circumstances. Two persons were charged under S. 51 of Travancore Act IV of 1095. The case against them was that they were found to be drunk and disorderly in a public street near Kottayam. The matter was reported by a Police Constable who happened to see these two people in the Public Street. On the complaint made by the Police constable, the Inspector of Police who was in charge of the Police station submitted a report to the First Class Magistrate of Kottayam. It appears from the records that the Magistrate took congnizance of the offence on this police report.

(2.) The offence was alleged to have been committed on 30.10.1950. The report was received by the Magistrate on 6.11.1950. In the Register of Summary trials kept in the Magistrates Court, the name of the complainant is shown as Narayana Pillai, Police Constable No. 902 Kottayam Cusba.

(3.) The case was posted for hearing. It was taken up on the 14th of December 1950. The endorsement made on the record by the Magistrate shows that on that date the police constable who gave the information on which the police report was submitted was not present. The records also show that the accused and four witnesses were present. That is the wording of the endorsement. It is not stated whether the four witnesses are witnesses for the prosecution or witnesses for the defence. Since they are mentioned after reference to the accused, it may not be incorrect to infer that they were witnesses brought by the accused persons. On that date, a Head Constable appeared before the Magistrate and prayed for an adjournment for a fortnight because the Police Constable on whose complaint the Police Report was submitted was not in a position to come to the court. The reason for his absence is not to be found in this endorsement. The Magistrate adjourned the case to the 2nd of January 1951. On that day also the endorsement on the record is to the effect that the accused and four witnesses were present. The complainant was not present. On that date, nobody seems to have appeared on behalf of the Police or to have made any representations to the Magistrate for an adjournment. In the circumstances, the Magistrate passed an order acquitting the accused. The following order appears on the record. Acquitted under S.244 , Criminal Procedure Code, since the complainant was not present when called up. He was absent on the last two adjournments also. The learned Public Prosecutor who appears before us states that this is a mistake made by the Magistrate because the case was started not upon a complaint but upon a police report. S.244 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure can apply only if the summons was issued on complaint. Here, the Magistrate took cognizance of the case on a Police Report. We are constrained to interfere in view of this mistake committed by the Magistrate. S.244 will apply only if the proceedings had been started on a complaint and not as in the present case, on a police report. The acquittal under S.244 is therefore technically wrong, and the order of the court below must be set aside with the direction that the Magistrate do proceed with the case in accordance with law. We should at the same time like to record our strong disapproval of the manner in which the Police have behaved in this case. When a class of public servants like the Police have started proceedings, they are expected to be reasonably diligent in prosecuting these proceedings and not to leave the Magistrates in the lurch when the case is called for hearing. On the adjourned date, namely, 2nd January 1951 nobody seems to have been present in court on behalf of the Police or on behalf of the State. The situation was certainly embarrassing for the Magistrate. It is not clear from the record that any witnesses for the prosecution were present. This seems to us to be a case in which the persons who are responsible for such negligence and discourtesy to the Magistrates Court should be called upon for explanations and disciplinary action taken if they are found to be remiss in the discharge of their legitimate duties. The work of the Magistrates Court will come to a standstill if responsible members of the Police force ignore their responsibility and do not take any steps for assisting the court in the trial of cases. The Magistrate has, no doubt, committed a technical error in the present case which was made us interfere, but that does not mean that the behaviour of the police has our approval. A copy of this Judgment shall be sent to the Chief Secretary to Government for information and such action as the Government may think fit to take in the matter.