RABINDRA NATH DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, to show cause why a certain proceeding pending against the Petitioner before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, should not be quashed.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are that on June 14 1954, an information was lodged by the Petitioner Rabindra Nath Das with the Jorasanko Police regarding the theft of a bicycle which had occurred on the day previous. In that information no one was mentioned as having been responsible for the theft. On June 22, 1954, the bicycle in question was recovered from one Batuk Roy and it transpired that it had been pledged with him for a sum of Rs. 20. On August 2, 1954, one Panchu Gopal Das was arrested for complicity in the offence charged on the identification of Batuk Roy. The owner of the bicycle is one Netaipada Das who identified it at a parade held in the court of a Presidency Magistrate. On September 13, 1954, a chalan was submitted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code as the result of investigation by the police against Panchu Gopal Das. On the date the chalan was submitted, a petition was filed by Panchu Gopal Das in the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate in which various allegations were made against the investigating officer and the present Petitioner. On receipt of this petition the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate desisted from taking cognizance of the offence mentioned in the chalan and directed an inquiry to be held by Mr. Sarbadhikary, another Presidency Magistrate into the petition submitted by Panchu Gopal Das. Before the last named Magistrate as many as six witnesses were examined by Panchu Gopal Das, and in these proceedings the Petitioner was not represented. The inquiring Magistrate made a report declaring that the Petitioner's information to the police was false and recommended to the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate discharge of Panchu Gopal Das. The inquiring Magistrate further advised that there should be inquiry into the offence under Section 211/ 109 of the Indian Penal Code which appeared to have been committed by the Petitioner and one Ganesh Chandra Gossain.

(3.) On September 27, 1954, the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate read the report submitted by the inquiring Magistrate and refused to accept the chalan submitted by the investigating officer. He further ordered the discharge of Panchu Gopal Das on the ground of want of evidence against him. By the same order the learned Magistrate directed issue of notices on the Petitioner and the aforesaid Ganesh Gossain calling upon them to show cause why a complaint should not be made against them for committing an offence under Section 211/ 109 of the Indian Penal Code. On November 1, 1954, the Petitioner showed cause in obedience to that order and the case was fixed for hearing on November 11, 1954, on which date the learned Magistrate after having heard the public prosecutor in the matter whom he had directed by an earlier order to appear in the case, fixed December 1, 1954, for the hearing of the matter. Thereafter the Petitioner applied to this Court and obtained the present Rule.