SUNIL MAJHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 323/294 I.P.C. Involves an interesting legal point revolving round the question of the status of Naraji petition in law and the duty of the court in relation thereto.

(2.) One Kasinath Saha filed before the Magistrate a complaint against the petitioner making allegation of offence? under Sections 325/355, T.P.C. The Magistrate after examining the complainant under Section 200 sent the complaint to the local Anchal Prodhan for enquiry and report The enquiring officer duly submitted his report and the complainant apprehending an adverse report filed a petition before the Magistrate making certain allegations against the enquiring officer and praving for a judicial enquiry. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the report and the petition above, which he took to be a naraji, directed a judicial en-quiry as prayed for. On the basis of the report of that enquiry, the petitioner was summoned and tried and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each under Sections 323/294 I. P. C. In default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks on each count.

(3.) Mr. Banerji appearing in support of the Rule argued that more than one enquiry in connection with a complaint is not contemplated by Section 202 Cr. P Code and that its beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction to direct successive enquiries on the same complaint through different agencies. The naraji petition filed in the case should, according to Mr. Banerjee have been treated as a petition of complaint and the complainant should have been examined that complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and thereafter it was open to the Magistrate to direct a Judicial enquiry as he has done and that is the procedure with the seal of judicial approval in a long chain of decisions which, it was urged, is required to be followed such cases. Reference was made in this connection to the cases Lachmi Shaw v. Emperor AIR 1932 Cal 383 (1), Satkari Ghose v. Ramlak-shman Dutta, AIR 1947 Cal 439, Akshoy Ku-mat v Jogesh Chandra. and Sushil Kumar v. Banka Mahto.