MD. ASLAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was directed against the order of the learned 1st Class Magistrate of Sealdab whereby he has ordered issue of summons against the: accused petitioners under Sections 6(a), 6(e) and 18 of the1 Indian Boilers Act. The prayer of the accused petitioners is that this proceeding against them should bee quashed.

(2.) THE petitioners are proprietors of firm named and styled as Hind Rubber Industries at 2, New Tangra Road, Calcutta. What happened is that according to the petitioners on 28.1.1962 while Biswanath Mistry was testing the baby boiler at about 8 -15' p. m. the boiler really Durst, whereby Biswanath died and some other persons were injured. The Chief Inspector of boilers filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate of Sealdah on 30.3.1962, under the aforesaid sections. The Magistrate took cognizance and ordered issue of summons against the accused petitioners. On 19.6.1962 the complaint was; dismissed under Section 204 of the Criminal P.C., by the? Magistrate as no copies of the complaint were filed. Thereafter the case was restored and the accused, petitioners were summoned under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Boilers Act.

(3.) IT appears that as soon as the complaint was. filed by the Chief Inspector of boilers on 30.3.1962, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and summons was issued. As the complainant is a public -servant, he was not required to be examined before the learned Magistrate. On the next date fixed i.e., or 19.6.1962, it appears that the complainant did not comply with the provisions of Section 204 Sub -section (1 -B) which provides that in a proceeding instituted upon an complaint, made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under Sub -section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. The learned Magistrate' recorded in his order dated 19.6.1962 that as even on the last date no copy was furnished, he dismissed the -complaint under Section 204, Criminal P.C. Thereafter on the petition of the Chief Inspector of boilers the -case was restored on 11.6.63 and fresh summons was ordered to be issued upon the accused persons under Sections 6(a), 6(c) and Section 18 of the Indian Boilers Act. Against these two orders the present petition has been) filed. I have already indicated before that the learned1 Advocate contended that the order of dismissal amounts to an acquittal of the accused under Section 403 of the Code and as such the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction to restore the case.