ANIL KUMAR SAHA Vs. PRANADA CHAKRABARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 24th of October, 1953, the petitioner Anil Kumar Saha, lodged a complaint before the , Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Lalbagh against the opposite parties, accusing them of having committed various offences. The main allegations were that when the opposite party No. 1, Pranada Chakrabarty, went to the complainant's father's house on 23rd of October, 1953, he demanded from his father, Bistu Pada Saha, the original Ekrarnama which one Samsher had executed in his favour; but as Anil Kumar Saha, on being asked by his father to make a copy of the same for being made over to the Sub-Inspector, went into an inner compartment, the Sub-Inspector along with two constables trespassed into the inner compartment, demanded the original Ekrarnama and while two constables -- whose names do not appear to have been mentioned in the petition of complaint, though they have been mentioned in the petition here -- held up the petitioner, the Sub-Inspector, opposite party No. 1, threatened him with a revolver. The allegation against the other accused persons appears to have been mainly of trespass into Bistu Pada's house. Alter taking cognisance of the petition of complaint, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate examined the complain ant, Anil Kumar Saha, on solemn affirmation and then sent it for enquiry to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (A). After the Deputy Superintendent of Police made his report, a Naraji petition was filed and then the Sub-Divisional Magistrate sent the matter to Sri A. C. Chatterjee, a Magistrate, for a judicial enquiry and report. The Magistrate examined a large number of witnesses produced by the complainant and also examined two persons -- the Deputy Superintendent of Police who held the previous enquiry and the Court Sub-Inspector of Police -- as Court witnesses. He stated in his report his conclusion that no prima facie case had been made out against the accused. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered the report and recorded the following order :

(2.) It 'is this order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure tnat Anil Kumar Saha now challenges as made illegally and improperly. The only ground urged before us in support of this submission, that the order of dismissal was illegal and improper, is the first ground mentioned in the application for revision in this Court. It is in these words

(3.) The question before us is whether this part that was taken by the accused through his lawyer in the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates the enquiry to such an extent as to make the order of dismissal passed by the learned Magistrate on basis of that report liable to rejection.