NIKKA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 14-10-1952, the Station House Officer of Kotwali Amritsar put in an application before the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector which was in the following terms:

(2.) On this the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector wrote on the same day "Forwarded", and it came up before the present Magistrate on which he recorded an order--

(3.) Both learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that in this case there has been a complete failure on the part of the Magistrate to comply with the provisions of Section 112, Cr. P. C. They object that there was no information before the Magistrate, that it was the Magistrate's duty to get information against the accused, that it was further his duty after having got that information that he should have made an order in writing in which he should have set forth the substance of the information which he had received and that the Magistrate should have also told the accused the amount of the bond which he had to execute and the term for which it was to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties, if any, required. Learned counsel says the Magistrate did not apply his mind at all to the facts of this case and he merely automatically passed an order which was practically to the effect that the order be as prayed. The objection is that in the application which the Station House Officer made he has given no information to the Magistrate as to what the accused is supposed to have done and has merely reproduced the words of a clause jn Section 110, Cr. P. C. Mere giving a bad name to a person and reproducing of a clause of a section of a statute against him is giving no information to the Magistrate. It is no doubt the duty of the Magistrate, they say, to protect the interests of the community but it is also his duty to see that nobody is unnecessarily harassed unless there is some information against him, and that the Magistrate did not take the trouble of getting the information which the law makes it incumbent on him to get before he starts the process of law against a citizen. Magistrates are expected to take intelligent interest in the matters before them and not to become handmaidens of the police. In this particular case the Station House Officer did not tell the Magistrate what exactly the accused had done and the Magistrate also took no trouble of getting the information from the Police Officer. He made no order that the accused should appear before him and answer the charge. The charge would have been the information which the Magistrate had received against the accused. The accused has a right to know what the Magistrate is going to try, why he is being summoned before him and what he had done to the prejudice of the interests of the community, so that he may be able to answer the accusations against him. It is urged that if the Magistrate had got information from the Police Officer it may be possible in an individual case for the Magistrate to flnd the information to be vague or to be baseless and the Magistrate may have dismissed the application without calling upon the accused. It is the Magistrate's function to scrutinize the information which is given to him and if the Magistrate does not take the trouble of getting the information from the police how can he scrutinize the information, & how can he find that the information given to him is frivolous or not, or credible or false. In my opinion therefore the preliminary steps which the Magistrate should have taken have not been taken in this case. I am not saying that there is no substance in what the police have against the accused, but all the material must be put before a Magistrate, in order that the Magistrate may apply his mind to it and having applied his mind may then proceed according to law and then give an opportunity to the accused to meet the charge against him. The object of the law of procedure is that there should be a charge which may be met and it is the business of the police to supply the information, the duty of the Magistrate to receive it and pass it on to the accused person in order that he may be able to meet it. As this has not been done in this case the proceedings before the Magistrate upto now i.e. the proceedings of summoning the accused were improper. Not only the Magistrate did not issue summons which ordinarily he must do unless the case is covered by the proviso to Section 114, but it does not appear from the record before me that the Magistrate had any papers of the case before him or ever thought that the proviso was applicable. If the proviso was not applicable it was improper on his part to have issued a warrant.