MONORANJAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition by Monoranjan Chakraborly illustrates in a telling manner that a small slip in procedural matters by a Court may furnish an occasion to a litigant to stall the proceedings for a long time and occasionally for years together. Hence, the dire necessity for the Presiding Officer of a Court and the staff attached to it to exercise eternal vigilance in carrying out their respective functions to ensure that nothing goes amiss so far as they are concerned.

(2.) A complaint was lodged against the present petitioner Monoranjan Chakraborty and 4 others in the Court of Shri T. L. Datta, Magistrate first class, Kamalpur, on 3 -6 -1968 by the Divisional Forest Officer. All the accused including Monoranjan Chakraborty were summoned in due course. The summons issued to Monoranjan Chakraborty marked "A" is on the file of the Criminal Motion No. 156 of 1968 of the Sessions Judge, Tripura. The summons was served on Monoranjan Chakraborty on 25 -7 -1968 by a forest guard. Monoranjan Chakraborty felt that the summons issued to him was not in the form prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code and so he moved a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge praying that the latter should recommend to this Court that the summons issued to him be quashed and his acquittal directed. A large number of objections were raised in the revision petition against the validity of the summons, . The Sessions Judge dealt only with the main contentions raised before him during the course of arguments, namely, (1) that the summons had not been accompanied by a copy of the complaint as enjoined by Sub -section (1 -B) of Section 204 of the Code, (2) that summons did not mention the offence with which Monoranjan Chakraborty had been charged, and (3) that the summons had not been happily drafted. However, he rejected the revision petition with the observation that though it is "legally necessary that the summons be accompanied by a copy of the complaint and it should mention the offence with which the accused is charged, but these omissions are curable under Section 537 of the Code. It was also observed by the Sessions Judge that such errors and omissions as had been debated before him could also be cured by subsequent compliance with the provisions of the law. In the last para of the order rejecting the revision petition, the Sessions Judge invited the attention of the Magistrate to Sub -section (1 -B) of Section 204 of the Code and suggested to him to issue a fresh summons to Monoranjan Chakraborty in accordance with the provisions of law.

(3.) SECTION 68(1) of the Code states that every summons issued by a Court shall be in writing in duplicate, signed and sealed by the Presiding Officer of the Court, or by such Officer as the High Court may, from time to time, by rule, direct. Section 555 of the Code provides that subject to the power conferred by Section 554, and by Article 227 of the Constitution, the forms set forth in the fifth schedule, with such variation as the circumstances of each case require, may be used for the respective purposes therein mentioned, and if used shall be sufficient. Form No. 1 of Schedule V is the form of summons issued to an accused person. According to that form, the particulars of the offence charged have to be mentioned in the summons issued to the accused. Undeniably, the summons marked "A" issued to Monoranjan Chakraborty did not mention the offence charged against him. Therefore, very clearly the summons issued to him was legally defective. It may be pointed out that schedule V is as much a part of the Code as any other portion of it, and as such non -compliance with the requirements of the forms in that schedule cannot be treated lightly, specially when essential features, like the nature of the offence charged, are not outlined in the summons issued. Since in the present case the petitioner challenged the validity of the summons issued to him at the earliest stage, it is only fit and proper that a direction be issued to the trial Court that a fresh summons in conformity with the provisions of the law be sent to the petitioner.