LAWS(CAL)-1968-2-1

AKSHOY KUMAR ROY Vs. LAL MOHAN MAZUMDER

Decided On February 29, 1968
AKSHOY KUMAR ROY Appellant
V/S
LAL MOHAN MAZUMDER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the complaint of the Opposite Party, the petitioner was summoned under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. There was an enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate holding the enquiry, discharged the petitioner under Section 209 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The opposite party moved the Sessions Judge against this order of discharge and an Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge and directed the Magistrate to commit the petitioner to the Court of Session to stand his trial under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has obtained this rule against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) The allegations made by the opposite party in the petition of complaint are as follows: The petitioner forged a Kobala purported to have been executed in his favour by one Jaynal Abedin and Sot it registered and thereafter used it in a proceeding before the 'competent authority' under the Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons and Eviction of Persons in unauthorised Occupation of Land Act, 1951.

(3.) The opposite party examined 7 witnesses on his behalf and the Magistrate holding the enquiry examined one witness as a Court witness. The Magistrate, thereafter, as we have said, discharged the petitioner under Section 209(1) of the Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has said that the committing Magistrate usurped the functions of the Sessions Court and in that view of the matter, set aside the order of discharge and directed the Magistrate to commit the petitioner for trial. It appears that the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration all the relevant materials on record before coming to his finding that there was no sufficient ground for commitment. We have looked into the relevant materials on record. It is not desirable for us to consider the materials in details at this stage but we are satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for committing the petitioner for trial.