JAUHARI MAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. , and the Revision Petition No. 2057 of 1965 connected with that case can be disposed of by a common order because the subject-matter of both is the same. The applicants of this petition are Sri Johri Mal and Kumari Arun Bala, minor daughter of Sri Johri Mal. They have prayed that this Court may quash the proceedings pending against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 614 of 1964 under Section 7 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act. The prayer in the revision petition is also to the same effect by asking for the setting aside of the order passed by the revisional Court and to discharge the applicants.

(2.) IT appears that the police got information that the petitioners were in possession of some telegraph wire as well as stolen utensils kept in their shops. Search of the shop was made and some telegraph wire was recovered. The police, however, found that crime could not be worked out 'and, therefore, they made a final report. When the final report came up for consideration before Sri Jai Dayal, a Magistrate, First Class, of the District, he directed the police to make fresh investigation and to submit a charge-sheet. Such a charge-sheet was subsequently submitted and on the basis of that charge-sheet a complaint under Section 7 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act was made by the Superintendent of Police against the petitioners. That complaint was first filed in the Court of Sri Jai Dayal, learned Magistrate mentioned above. An application for the transfer of the case appears to have been moved whereupon the learned Magistrate made the following order:-

(3.) WHEN the case was transferred to the Court of Mr. A. N. Khare, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S. D. M. , Jansath), he ordered that the complaint submitted by the Superintendent of Police against Jauhari Mal and Kumari Arun Bala be dismissed as not maintainable on account of the reasons recorded by him in his order. He proceeded to discharge the petitioners. The view taken by Mr. Khare, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was that the order of the learned Magistrate Mr. Jai Dayal requiring the police which had made a final report in the matter, to submit a charge-sheet after reinvestigation was illegal, and that a complaint filed on the basis of such a charge-sheet was not maintainable in law. Mr. Khare noticed the various decisions relating to the point and came to the conclusion that the Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to require the police to submit a charge-sheet in case where the police had made a final report. The Magistrate certainly would have the power to require further investigation to be made but to make a direction for submitting a charge-sheet there was no sanction in law. It is on such consideration that the complaint was dismissed by Mr. Khare and the petitioners were discharged.