IN RE: ESWARDOSS KALIDOSS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner presented a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime, Madras, against a certain R.V. Bhat alleging that he had committed an offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code in respect of a number of diamonds, valued at Rs. 20,000 entrusted to him by the petitioner. The police filed a charge sheet on the basis of this complaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the case resulted in the discharge of the accused. In the course of the enquiry the petitioner gave evidence which, in the opinion of the prosecution, was irreconcilable with certain of the statements made in the complaint; and the Assistant Commissioner thereupon filed a complaint against him for an offence under Section 211 of the Penal Code. This complaint was transferred to the file of the Third Presidency Magistrate and the preliminary objection was raked that the Third Presidency Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case without a complaint from the Chief Presidency Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) read with Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This objection was overruled by the Third Presidency Magistrate, and the petition now under consideration is against his order.

(2.) SECTION 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code enacts that:

(3.) AS already stated there seems to be no decision of this Court which is directly in point; but the view expressed by the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court in Ahmed v. : AIR1927Cal478 is, in my opinion, in, accordance with the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Registrar, High Court, Madras v. Kodangi, (1930) 62 M.L.J. 425 :, I.L.R. 55 Mad. 611 . The question referred to the Full Bench in that case was: