KANJI VIJPAL Vs. PANDURANG KESHAV RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the learned Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, was trying two complaints arising out of the same transaction, one of them being under Section 102 of the Presidency-towns INsolvency Act, for which the punishment is less than six months and, therefore, the case is a summons case, which should be tried normally under Chapter XX of the Criminal Procedure Code. The other charge is under Section 420 of the INdian Penal Code, and that is a warrant case triable under Chapter XXI. The learned Magistrate was trying the two offences together, and it was decided in Rajnarain Koonwar v. Lala Tamoli Rout (1884) I.L.R. 11 Cal. 91 that in such an event it is the warrant procedure which must be followed. That is clearly right; the procedure to be followed must be that laid down for the more serious offence.

(2.) THE case had been, adjourned to a particular date, and on that date the complainant was absent, and the learned Magistrate passed an order, " Complainant absent. Accused discharged." That is in form an order under Section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code, relating to warrant cases, and the order does not prevent the lodging of a fresh complaint in respect of the same matter. But if the case was being tried as a summons case, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make any other order than that of acquittal or adjournment under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code.