CHANDRASEKHAR PANDA Vs. BIRABAR MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who figures as the accused person in the court below, cballenges the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 323, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a report of enquiry made by a subordinate Magistrate under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for both the sides, this matter is covered by a decision of this Court in Omprakash Saha v. Manmohan Mohanty and another.

(2.) Taking into consideration the legislative intent and following the decisions of the Calcutta and Patna High Courts in similar cases, this Court bas, in the aforesaid case, held: ...In view of the express intention of the Legislature in the present Code by making substantial changes in section 202 as provided in the old Code on the basis of the recommendation of Law Commission and the scheme of the Code providing for taking of congnisance of an offence by a Magistrate and conducting of investigation by a police officer or such other personT as a Magistrate thinks fit, no Judicial Magistrate can be entrusted with au inquiry into a complaint under the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate who is empowered to take cognisance of the offence.

(3.) The impugned order cannot be sustained in law.1).