PARUL BALA SEN GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision of an order mode by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta dated the 23rd November, 1958, whereby the petitioner Parul Bala Sen Gupta was called upon to show cause why she should not pay compensation under Section 553 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The petitioner had made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti-Rowdy Section, Enforcement Branch, charging one Ranjit Das Gupta with having enticed her minor daughter aged about 11 years and ravished her. The allegation further was that Ranjit was a depraved person who had been involved in similar Incidents in the past and was a menace to the petitioner and her people. Protection was accordingly sought for and it was prayed that the miscreant might be removed from the locality. The matter was sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the Amherst Street Police who on receipt of the petitioner's complaint took cognisance and started investigation under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against Ranjit who was arrested and then released on bail. In the course of investigation the police examined several persons including the girl. The Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate before whom the accused was produced remanded the case on two occasions, and on the 33rd November, 1957, when the police prayed for further remand on the ground that the chemical examiner's report was being awaited, the learned Magistrate made the order complained of. He thought no useful purpose would be served by waiting for the report as the alleged sexual act had taken place six months ago. The learned Magistrate presumably perused the police papers and held that no sexual act could possibly have taken place in view of the circumstance disclosed that the private parts of the girl had been entirely unhurt. In the view the Magistrate took, he discharged the accused for want of evidence and at the same time called upon the petitioner to show cause why she should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused under the provisions of Section 553 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate also advised the police that they should consult superior officers and decide whether steps should be taken to charge the petitioner with having committed an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. It is "against this order, that the present Rule is directed.

(3.) Mr. Dutt appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the order under Section 553 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a wholly misconceived one and must, therefore, be set aside. The learned Magistrate has submitted a lengthy explanation stating the circumstances in which he made the order complained of. That explanation, I must say at once, does not really meet the challenge to the legality of the order, but seeks to justify the course taken by the Magistrate in discharging the accused and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why she should not be ordered to pay compensation. The explanation of a Presidency Magistrate has to be considered under the provisions of Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section provides that the Magistrate may submit with the record of the case a statement setting forth the grounds of his decision or order and any facts which he thinks material to the issue; this Court is required to consider such statement before overruling or setting aside the decision or the order in question. I have accordingly given careful consideration to the explanation of the Magistrate in answer to this Rule. I am wholly unable to find any ground upon which reliance may be placed for the purpose of holding that the Magistrate's order which is now impugned was legal or proper.