BRAHMA PANDA Vs. CHAIRMAN OF HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revisional petition for quashing the proceedings in case No. 519 -C of 1957 pending in the court of Sri S. N. Das Gupta, Magistrate of the first class, Howrah.

(2.) ON a complaint made by the Municipality of Howrah on the 5th November, 1957, alleging that the present petitioners had violated the provisions under Section 448 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923 as extended to the Municipality of Howrah read with Rule 22 schedule 17 summons was issued against the petitioners. On the 12th December, 1957, summons was returned after service. But the accused were absent. Then warrant of arrest was issued on the 27th December, 1957, with bail of Rs. 500/ - but the petitioners could not be arrested. Subsequently warrant of arrest was taken to the house of the petitioners on the 28th/29th July, 1958, at night when one Dinonath Tewari stood surety for the petitioners who had earlier left for their native village. On the 5th August, 1958, the surety appeared by a lawyer in court when the learned Magistrate, made the following order: 'Accused absent. Petition filed by surety asking for time to produce the accused, who aresaid to have gone home. Normally, I should nothave acceded to the request as the surety had nobusiness to pop in when he knew that the accusedpersons would be going away to their native villageshortly. Any way, I give a short adjournment tillthe 23rd August. If surety fails to produce theaccused persons positively on the date fixed, hewill stand to lose the entire amount of the bailbond.'

(3.) WE have carefully considered the revisional petition and arguments of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. We are unable toagree with him that the summons ceased to besummons simply because it was not accompaniedby copy of the complaint. The petitioners shouldhave attended the court in obedience to the summons and then brought to the notice of the learnedMagistrate that the summons was not accompaniedby a copy of the petition of complaint as requiredby Section 204(1 -B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The petitioners were not justified in not attendingthe court of the learned Magistrate. It cannot besaid that the jurisdiction of the learned Magistratewas affected simply because the summons wasissued without a copy of the complaint. Furtherit would appear from the summons itself that thepetitioners were required to answer to a chargeunder Section 488 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. Itis true that quite a large number of offences arelisted under Section 488 of the Calcutta MunicipalAct, but then if the petitioners attended the courtof the learned Magistrate and asked for a copy ofthe complaint, they would have known what thedetails of the offences were. At any rate althoughthe summons was issued without copy of the complaint annexed, the petitioners should not havedisregarded the summons and refused to attendthe court of the learned Magistrate. When thepetitioners attend the court of the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate will certainly directcopies of the complaint to be given to the petitioners.