LAWS(ORI)-1951-4-2

SANATAN BALIARSING Vs. STATE

Decided On April 12, 1951
SANATAN BALIARSING Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the petitioners for quashing a proceeding initiated under Section 107, Criminal P. C. The order of the Magistrate which ia based upon a police report reads :

(2.) The petitioners' case is that the contents of the order are too vague to give them requisite notice of the substance of information received by the Magistrate, & therefore, the order is void & of no legal effect. In other words, it is contended that the proceeding is not lawfully & validly initiated & should, therefore be quashed. This proceeding was initiated on 5-9-1949 & has been dragging on till now. On perusal of the different orders already passed in the ordersheet of the case, it appears that the proceeding was first started in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Khurda, but as one or more of the accused persons were detained in the Puri Jail as security prisoners, the accused persons had to suffer in the Khurda Court till 21-7-50 without the proceeding progressing beyond examination & partial cross-examination of the first party, Bhagirathi Mohapatra. Later, in order to enable the detenu accused to attend the Court, the proceeding was transferred to the Court of the Magistrate at Puri where it is still pending. The petition to this Court was admitted on 24-8-50, but stay of further proceedings was not ordered. Under the circumstances, one would normally expect that the proceeding should have been procfeded with & the trial should have concluded by now. It is difficult to understand why the trial has not been pushed on. I understand from a representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the same, the petitioners have been attending the Puri Court from date to date. This unnecessary dragging of a large number of casea in this manner reminds one of the old saying 'what is play to you is death to us'. I would invite the attention of the authority, namely, the District Magistrate, the Eevenue Commissioner & the Chief Secretary who will look into the matter & see that such protraction of proceedings to the great harassment of a large number of people does not recur in future.

(3.) Coming to the question at issue & considering that the matter is of some general importance I have tried to study the matter carefully & ascertain the views of various High Courts on the point whether lack of strict compliance with the provisions of Section 112, Cr. P. C., namely failure to set forth the substance of the information, would render the proceeding void & wherever such lacuna occurs, the accused persons shall, as a matter of right, be entitled to have the proceeding quashed. I have been ably assisted by the learned counsel for both sides & it has been brought to my notice that a decision of a Single Judge of this Court also has added to the difficulty of the problem so far as the Courts under the juriediction of this High Court are concerned.