DEB NARAYAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case lodged an information with the police charging certain persons with having committed offences under Sections 436 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of the information was that on 21-3-1951 when the petitioner was reading in his hut he discovered that a cowshed in front of him was ablaze. People from near-about places came up to put out the fire when he was informed that the focal zamindar had come with miscreants in a motor vehicle and had been responsible for the arson. It was also stated in that information that one of the people had fired some blank shots.

(2.) There was a police investigation consequent on this information which resulted in the submission of a final report. The police followed it up by a prayer for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code. After the final report had been submitted, the petitioner challeng- ed it by means o a naraji petition. The naraji was enquired into but was ultimately dismissed. Then a prosecution under Section 211/182 was started against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate recorded an order on 19-6-1954 by which he stated that he had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 211/ 182 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 190(IXb) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present Rule is directed against the order dismissing the petitioner's Naraji and alternatively against the order summoning the petitioner under Section 211/182 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Mukherjee that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate was one not sanctioned by the law. This contention seems to me to be well-founded. It appears that the petitioner has after all been summoned under Section 211/182 of the Indian Penal Code. Whatever the genesis of the complaint may be, if a complaint is made under Section 211/182 that by a Court, the procedure laid down in Section 195(1)(b) has to be followed. That in its turn would attract the provisions of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case these provisions have not been complied with and the petitioner was straightaway summoned although on a day subsequent to the date of taking cognizance of the offence against him enquiries were made into the truth of the naraji filed by the petitioner.