STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMLAKHAN JAGNARAYAN UPADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon. Camp at Yeotmal. recommending'that as the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Darwha. had no -jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence Under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-opponent the proceedings before the Magistrate should be quashed. An offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, in which relatives of one Baliram of village Mangki-nhi were involved was being investigated by Police Sub Inspector Kshirsagar of Darwha Police. Station. On 7-3-1969 Ramlakhan. the opponent, who was a police constable, gave a report at Darwha Police Station that Baliram had approached him and had paid him Rupees 25/- and had further asked him to pur-suade Police Sub-Inspector Kshirsaear to help his relatives in the case which Kshirsagar was investigating. Ramlakhan had also reported that Baliram had promised that some more amount would be paid as illegal gratification to police Sub-Inspector Kshirsagar. On this report an offence was registered against Baliram, but during investigation it was found that Ramlakhan himself had obtained about Rs. 600/- from Baliram and assured him that he would tell Kshirsagar to help Baliram's relations in the investigation. The Darwha police therefore submitted a final report to the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Darwha and asked for srant of 'b' summary. The learned Magistrate granted 'b' Summary and ordered prosecution of Ramlakhan Under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Coda. Thereafter Darwha police filed Istagasha against Ramlakhan for an offence Under Section 211 of - the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate on the basis of this Istaghasha.

(2.) AN objection was filed by Ramlakhan that in the absence of a complaint from the Magistrate, who grant-ed the 'b' summary, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. This application was. however, rejected.

(3.) RAMLAKHAN then filed a revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge relying on a decision of this Court in Bajaji Appa. ii v. Emperor (A. I. R. 1946 Bom. 7) held that in view of the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code, in the absence of any complaint by the Magistrate, who issued 'b' summary. the Judicial Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence Under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, took the view that the proceedings before the Magistrate were without jurisdiction and should be quashed. He has accordingly made this reference.