LAWS(MPH)-1997-7-113

NAND KUMAR KRISHNARAO NAVGIRE Vs. JAGANNATH LAXMAN KUSHALKAR

Decided On July 23, 1997
Nand Kumar Krishnarao Navgire Appellant
V/S
Jagannath Laxman Kushalkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay declining to upset an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, whereby notice issued against the complainant -respondent under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was discharged.

(2.) IT is seen that the State at the instance of the complainant had prosecuted the appellant and another on charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, etc. The appellant was acquitted of the charges by the Presiding Officer of the Court who issued simultaneously a notice to the complainant -respondent as to why he should not be ordered to pay compensation under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By the time the respondent could give his response, the Presiding Officer got charged. The succeeding one took the view that he had no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He opined that jurisdiction conferred on a Magistrate under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was personal to the incumbent and that a successor could not continue with the proceedings. That order has been upheld by the High Court in revision.

(3.) LITERAL meaning of the expression ''the Magistrate" occurring in the opening of sub -section (2) of the section 250, on first flush admits the interpretation that a succeeding Magistrate can continue with the proceedings initiated by his predecessor under sub -section (1) of section 250 CrPC. An attractive argument can also be advanced to suggest that had the intention of the legislature been that the same Magistrate, as initiating, should conclude proceedings under section 250, then the expression aforementioned in quotes could have been "such Magistrate". The last words in sub -section (6) "such Magistrate" can also be employed to support the afore -view, but the argument would not stand long because such Magistrate could also be read as the same Magistrate initiating and concluding (but here the Magistrate, 2nd Class).