NAMASIVAYAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears from the facts of the case that the officials of the Coopertive Land Development Bank, Sankarankoil, on 13-5-1977 at about 2-30, p. m. at Vasudevanallur, equipped with a distraint warrant, to discharge their official duties as public servants, entered into the house of the petitioner's father Mr. Periaswami Pillai for removing the articles and have thus removed the movable articles like Radio, fan, Wall-clock, etc. , from the house of the petitioner's father since the petitioner's father has not paid the money due and payable to the Cooperative Society. It further appears from the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel and from the petition filed by the petitioner, that the petitioner's father preferred a report before the police against the high-handed action of the five officials of the Co-operative Land Development Bank for offences under Sections 147, 454, 380, 505 (ii) read with Section 149 I. P. C. It was contended by the petitioner's father, that the Co-operative Land Development Bank officials have no authority to seize the articles from his house The complaint lodged by the petitioner's father to the police did not materialise and hence, a private complaint was filed before the Court by the petitioner's father and the said complaint was forwarded by the Magistrate to Sivagiri Police Station under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. The Inspector of police Puliyangudi investigated the complaint forwarded by the Magistrate and filed a charge-sheet before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti. It is the contention of the petitioner that the charge-sheet was returned to the Police, to comply with some technical procedural defects. Thereupon, the police, instead of complying the defects, has submitted its investigation report to the Magistrate and referred the case as a mistake of law. According to the petitioner herein, this procedure adopted by the Police is illegal and contrary to law. But we are not concerned with this for the present.

(2.) WHILE this was so, one of the accused against whom a complaint was lodged by the petitioner's father, as a counterblast, sent a written complaint against the petitioner herein to the police on 25th May, 1977, (that is, twelve days after the incident) contending that the petitioner herein, on 13th May, 1977, while they were discharging their duties as public servants, has committed acts of assault and used criminal force, against the Bank officials from discharging their duties, warranting the petitioner's conviction under Section 353 I. P. C. This complaint sent by one of the accused, who is no other than the Cooperative official, was registered by the Police as Crime No. 332 of 1977 against the Petitioner herein under Section 353 I. P. C. This complaint was investigated by the Inspector of Police, Puliyangudi, and some of the Co-operative officials were examined and thereafter it was found by the police that no offence as alleged has been made out against the petitioner and hence the complaint lodged by the Cooperative Official was referred to, as mistake of law. The Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Sankarankoil, out whom the police referred their investigation report, passed orders on 16th July, 1977, as follows :- "read orders passed on the refer charge-sheet-Order-Recorded as mistake of law". Thereafter another Inspector of Police of Sankarankoil, out of his own initiation, conducted fresh investigations on the original complaint of the Co-operative official against the petitioner herein and on the basis of the fresh investigations on the old complaint, filed a charge-sheet against petitioner under Section 353 I. P. C. before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Sankarankoil, which is numbered as C. C. No. 366 of 1978 which the petitioner

(3.) THE short contention of the petitioner is, that when once the complaint lodged by one of the Co-operative officials against the Petitioner having been enquired by the police and the Magistrate on the report of the police passed an order as 'mistake of law' on 16th July, 1977, the police has no power to reinvestigate the same complaint or to reopen the investigation at the instance of the Inspector of Police again, and file a charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 353 I. P. C. According to the petitioner, the acceptance of the report submitted by the police to the magistrate on earlier occasion after due investigation by the police and Dassine an order by the Magistrate on the police report in respect of an alleged offence under Section 353 I. P. C. alleged to have been committed by the petitioner "as mistake of law", will amount to an acquittal of the petitioner, which has become final unless the said order of the Magistrate is reversed by a competent higher Judicial forum. The other contention of the petitioner is, that reinvestigation of the offence after passing of the order by the Magistrate as mistake of law and filing a charge-sheet against the petitioner on the same offence, without obtaining the permission of the Court, is illegal and contrary to S. 300 Crl. P. C.