STATE Vs. JOYDEV CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for quashing the commitment of the accused Joydeb Chandra Das in respect of a charge under section 302 I.P.C. The accused petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence on Nov. 3, 1955. The investigation of the case was done by the Calcutta Police and the Calcutta Police submitted a challan or report on February 25, 1956. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took up the enquiry under the provisions of section 207A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and without recording evidence he perused the police papers and wrote out order committing the accused petitioner to the High Court Sessions, after framing a charge in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed. Mr. Barua appearing for the petitioner has urged that the learned committing Magistrate was wrong in applying section 207A of the Code Criminal Procedure and that the enquiry should have been held under sections 208 to 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because the investigation by the Calcutta Police was not an investigation held under the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Code Criminal Procedure and therefore the report or challan submitted by the police could not be considered a report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and in the absence of such a report, it is urged that the committing Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed under section 207A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) Sec. 207 of the amended Code Criminal Procedure provides that in holding an enquiry into cases triable by the Court of Session or the High Court the Magistrate shall (a) in a proceeding instituted on police report follow the procedure specified in section 207A and (b) in any other proceeding follow the procedure specified in the other provisions of Chapter XVIII, The words "a police report" under section 207, clause (a) must be read as a police report forwarded under section 173 of the amended Code, because section 207A, subsection (1) provides as follower:--

(3.) Sec. 207A, therefore, only describes the procedure which the Magistrate, has to follow on receiving a police report forwarded under section 173 of the Code and there is no procedure prescribed in respect of any other class of police report other than the usual procedure under sections 208 to 213. Accordingly, it is clear that so long as the Calcutta Police held investigation under the provisions of the Calcutta Police Act. 1866 and submitted challan under the provisions of that Act and not a report under the provisions of Sec. 173 of the Code, the new procedure prescribed by section 107A could not apply Sec. 173 of the Code Criminal Procedure was, however, made applicable to the Calcutta Police by notification No. 577J of 25-1-56 which came into force on its publication in the Calcutta Gazette on 9-2-56. In the present case the report of the police was submitted on Feb. 25, 1956, that is, after section 173 had been made applicable to the Calcutta Police, and it would appear, therefore, that the challan or report, however the document may be described, must be considered to be a report under Sec. 173 of the Code Criminal Procedure and, therefore, it would, appear that section 207A would apply to the present case.