PRAFULLA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is against the order dated 25.5.74 passed by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk dismissing the complain-anil --petitioner's petition of complainant. The petitioner lodged a complaint against as many as 26 persons alleging theft of paddy from the land which he and others cultivated as Bargadars under Rani Suhasini Roy. The complainant was initially examined by the learned Magistrate entertaining the said complaint and he directed an inquiry by the officer-in-chargc of the local police station and for his report. A report was received in due course whereupon the petitioner filed a petition challenging the said report and he himself prayed for a judicial inquiry by the learned Magistrate himself. That prayer was allowed by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate and he himself examined the witness produced for the purpose. It appears further that the persons complained against were allowed to watch the proceeding and through their lawyer they were permitted to make submission on points of law only and upon such submission the learned Subdivisicnal Judicial Magistrate in the ultimate result dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Cr. P.C. It is against this older dismissing the complaint that the present Rule is directed.

(2.) Mr. Ghorai, learned Advocate appearing for the Complainant petitioner, has submitted before us that the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate did not in fact express his own views on the result of the inquiry and without proper application of mind took recourse to non-conformance of the provisions laid down in section 200 Cr. P.C. which was at the material time available, on the decision reported in, 78 C.W.N. 307 and practically dismissed the petition of complaint on the ground of non-conformance of the provisions of the mandatory requirements of section 200 Cr. P.C.

(3.) Mr. Ghosal, learned Advocate appearing for the State, very fairly conceded that the decision reported in, 78 C.W.N. 307 upon which the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate acted has since been overruled by a decision of the Special Bench of this Court. He further conceded that the impugned order cannot be supported and the matter has to be sent back to learned Magistrate for a proper consideration in accordance with law. Mr. Ghosal in this connection submitted that it was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to express himself about the result of the inquiry as made by the police and as it was further re-informed by a further inquiry made by the learned Magistrate himself by examining certain witness produced before him by the complainant.