AMAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the order of commitment of the petitioner to the Court of Sessions should not be quashed.

(2.) By an order, dated 20-11-1957 Sri T.K. Mutsuddi, Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta committed the petitioner to take his trial in the court of Sessions on a charge under Sections 397/395 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It is not necessary for the present purpose to narrate the facts upon which the prosecution case was founded. An enquiry preliminary to commitment was held under the provisions of Section 207A of the amended Code of Criminal Procedure. After the matter reached the stage of trial before the City Sessions Court a point was taken that the whole commitment was wrong inasmuch as the procedure which was to be followed by the learned Magistrate, was the one laid down not under Section 207A, but under Section 208 of the Code. This argument was based on the two decisions of Chakravartti C. J. and Das Gupta J. where their Lordships held that the provisions of Section 156 of the Code were not applicable to the Calcutta Police and that the Calcutta Police had no right to submit a report under Section 173 of the Code. See the cases of Manick Chand v. The State, and M.A. Ispaque v. The State.