NAYAN CHAND DAS Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition of revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, U. A. D., dated 3 -9 -1949 by which what was virtually a petition of revision assailing the correctness of the orders of the Magistrate, let Glass, Silchar, dated the 19th and 21st April 1948, was rejected. The learned Sessions Judge disallowed the petition holding that be had no power to quash the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 182, which had been initiated in pursuance of the order of 10th April. The petitioner has come up to this Court on revision.

(2.) ON 29 -3 -1948, the petitioner reported to the officer -in -charge Silchar P. S., that his godown had been broken open on the previous night and that a considerable quantity of yarn had been stolen away. The usual police investigation followed and on 12 -4 -1948 a report embodying the result of the investigation was submitted to the Magistrate at Silchar. The Police Report was to the effect that the case under Section 457/380, Penal Code, was false but that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the complainant. The learned Magistrate passed his order on this report on 19 -4 -1948. The order was to the following effect:

(3.) THE petition of revision filed in the "Sessions Court was directed against the order of the learned Magistrate passed by him on the 19th and slat April 1948 as stated above. The learned Sessions Judge declined to interfere on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. It is now contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 19 -4 -1948 directing the officer -in -charge Silchar P. S., to lodge a complaint against the petitioner under Section 182, Penal Code, was without jurisdiction. The Magistrate could act only under Section 476, Criminal P.C. Under that section he could make a complaint to some other Magistrate of the 1st Class if on a petition made to him or otherwise, he was of the opinion that it was expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195, Sub -section (d), Clause (b), or Clause (c), which appeared to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court. The learned Counsel points out that none of the conditions necessary for the exorcise of jurisdiction under Section 476, Criminal P.C. exist in this case. The alleged offence in this case is not covered by Section 195, sub -a. (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c). The offence had not been committed in or in relation to the proceedings in the Court. The learned Magistrate could not come to the conclusion that it was expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into the matter. This order was wholly without jurisdiction.