MARJIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. SUDHAMOY BHATTACHARYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a complaint filed by Sudhamoy Bhattacharyya against Marjit Kumar Singh under Section 406 420, I.P.C. on 23.12.50, Shri C. Singh, B.L. Magistrate 1st Class, Sadar, Agartala, after taking complainant's statement issued process against the accused by way of non -bailable warrant under Section 406, I.P.C. Thereafter the accused applied to the Magistrate to drop the proceedings against him mainly on the ground that the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the case in the absence of a regular complaint as required by law. This prayer was rejected on 24.5.51. On a motion by the accused the learned Sessions Judge has forwarded the case to this Court with recommendation for quashing the proceedings considering that the complaint is not a regular one as contemplated by law on which cognizance could be taken. He has expressed his views as follows:

(2.) THE present complaint is on a printed form in vogue in the State for the last 40 or 50 years. It has 6 columns, each indicating its requirement. The different columns for time of occurrence, name of the complainant, name and address of the witnesses, name of the accused, complaint or charge and remarks are all duly filled up. In column No. 5 Re. complaint or charge only Sections of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. 406 & 420, I.P.C. are mentioned while in the column of remarks it is prayed that a non -bailable warrant may be issued against the accused and that the list of articles under question is attached on the next page along with. It is dated 27.12.50. Immediately after receiving the above complaint the learned Magistrate proceeded to examine the complainant and after examining him issued process against the accused as stated above. The complaint as it stands, therefore, contains most of the necessary facts, viz., time of occurrence, name of the complainant and the accused, name and address of the witnesses, the offence charged with and the property with respect to which the offence has been committed. What appears to be wanting is a clear allegation of facts constituting the offence, which is absent. It cannot be said, therefore, that there is total absence of facts constituting the offence in the complaint and that it is not a valid complaint. On the other hand, some detail is missing which may be called important and that can be ascertained or elucidated on examination under Section 200, Cr.P.C.

(3.) A complaint need not contain details. On receipt of a complaint the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence shall at once examine the complainant on oath. This is a mandatory provision of Section 200, Cr.P.C. The words 'taking cognizance' in this Section do not mean 'after taking cognizance' as argued by the learned Counsel of the petitioner. They in my opinion, connote 'in the course of taking cognizance'. It is a present continuous act. Blacker J. of the Lahore High Court has observed thus in - Arjan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1939 Lah 479 .