R V RAMA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sections 435 and 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, by the accused in C. C. No. 2497 of 1956 before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kurnool, to quash those proceedings against him. The grounds urged for quashing are: (1) The prosecution is barred under Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, as there was u previous acquittal of the petitioner for the same alleged offence under Section 47 of the Madras District Police Act, 1859; (2) The facts alleged against the petitioner do not come within the purview of the Madras District Police Act and therefore do not constitute an offence under Section 47; (3) The prosecution is barred by time under Section 53 of the Act.

(2.) The facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised are briefly these; On 26-7-1955, the petitioner, who styles himself as the Secretary of the All India Citizens Association, Vizianagaram, sent a petition to the Inspector General of Police, Andhra State, Kurnool, alleging that one Sri Lanka Satyam, Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajapathinagaram, was hushing up and suppressing cases after taking bribes. . The petitioner requested in that petition immediate action against the Sub-Inspector. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vizianagararn enquired into that petition and came to the conclusion that the allegations against the Sub-Inspector were false and frivolous and were made maliciously and without probable cause. He therefore filed a charge-sheet under Section 47 of the Madras District Police Act, before the District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, on 7-2-1956. The District Magistrate took the case on his file as C. C. No. 27 of 1956 and issued summons to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before him on 20-2-1956 and there were a few adjournments. Then the Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the Slate filed a memo, stating that the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, under a mistaken view of the law regarding jurisdiction, that the District Magistrate had no local jurisdiction to try the case and that only the Court at Kurnool could have such jurisdiction. The petitioner contended contra, but the District Magistrate made an order on 13-3-1956, holding that he had no jurisdiction to try the case and directing the charge-sheet to be returned under Section 201, Criminal Procedure Code, for presentation to the proper Court. The charge-sheet was then laid before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kurnool. who took the case on file as C. C. No. 2497 of 1956.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case was withdrawn by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Court of the District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and that the order of the District Magistrate, therefore, amounted to an acquittal of the petitioner, with the result that the trial before the District Magistrate had commenced before he passed the order on ,13-3-1956, because, the petitioner had appeared before him on 20-2-1956 and the case is a summons case. In Kandaswami Pillai v. Executive Officer, Panchayat Board, Attur, (1947) 1 Mad LI 172: (AIR 1947 Mad 306 (1)) (A), Yahya Alt J, said: "As set out in Section 242, Criminal Procedure Code, the trial of a summons case begins when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, and not when he is asked to show cause why DA should not be convicted".