K SHANMUGASUNDARA NADAR Vs. V SADASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to quash the charge framed in C. C. No. 4690 of 1966 by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, G. T. , Madras.

(2.) THE complainant-respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the Fourth Presidency Magistrate which was taken on file under S. 417, i. P. C. , triable under Summons procedure. Subsequently after issuing process to the petitioner, the learned Presidency Magistrate framed a charge under S. 420, i. P. C. which is triable under warrant procedure.

(3.) THE point that arises for consideration in this case is whether a Magistrate who took cognizance of the case under S. 190 (1) (a) of an offence triable as a summons case can subsequently convert it into a warrant case. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. G. Gopalaswami contends that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence triable as a summons case, he cannot convert it under any circumstances to a warrant case, even if it is disclosed from the records and the evidence that an offence triable as a warrant case is made out. I do not think there is any substance in his contention. There is no bar in the criminal Procedure Code to adopt the procedure as was done in this case by the learned Presidency Magistrate. If a Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance of the case wrongly takes the case on file of an offence which he subsequently realises either from careful perusal of the records or of subsequent events and developments, he can take cognizance of that offence which was disclosed subsequently and proceed with, following the appropriate procedure under S. 529 (e), Crl. P. C. If any Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under s. 190 (1) (a) or (b) erroneously in good faith, the proceedings on that account shall not be set aside.