SUJIT KUMAR MAITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court: The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated September 9, 2010 is questioning the summons to witness dated September 2, 2010( at p.23) issued by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Kharagpur in connection with a complaint lodged with him by one Aditya Kumar Dey.

(2.) Mr. Acharya, counsel for the petitioner, argues as follows. The petitioner is the president of the managing committee of Baragarh Sasanka Sekhar Bodh Niketan in Baragarh of the district Paschim Medinipur. The petitioner apprehends that the complaint, not served on him with the summons, has been lodged against him. The Subdivisional Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to issue the summons. It is evident from the summons, issued using Form No.33 set forth in the Second Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that the petitioner has been summoned as a witness on the ground that he is likely to give material evidence or to produce document and other thing necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in the complaint.

(3.) Even if the petitioner is the president of the managing committee of the institute, that does not give him a right to say that the Sub-divisional Magistrate cannot summon him as a witness. Under s.6 of the Code, Executive Magistrates are one of the classes of Criminal Courts. The Sub-divisional Magistrate has issued the summons qua an Executive Magistrate. Hence I do not find any reason to say that it has been issued without jurisdiction.