MARKANDEY RAI Vs. SHEO KUMAR THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history. On the 14th of October, 1957, the petitioned Markandey Rai, as a member of the Managing Committee of the Bhumihar Brahmin High English School, Buxar, filed a petition of complaint, as being authorised by the President of the said Managing Committee, before the District Magistrate of Shahabad against the two opposite parties, namely, Sheokumar Thakur, opposite party No. 1, who was the Headmaster of that school, and Rajaram Arya, opposite party No. 2, who was a nominated member of the Managing Committee of that school, for criminal breach of trust as well as for forgery. According to the prosecution, the Headmaster was a man of influence at Buxar, and so the petition of complaint, instead of being filed before the Subdivisional Magistrate, Buxar, was filed before the District Magistrate of Shahabad. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on the 1st of November, 1957, and as, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, the complaint required proper investigation, he directed the Superintendent of Police, Shahabad, to have the complaint investigated by the police. The complainant at once filed a petition objecting to the investigation being made by the police, but the learned District Magistrate rejected that petition. On the 10th of December, 1957, however, the complainant again filed a petition before the District Magistrate for withdrawing the investigation from the police, but the District Magistrate again rejected the same. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was directed by the Superintendent of Police to make the investigation, did not do any-thing in the matter, and reported that, as the complaint disclosed cognizable offence, the complainant should be directed to lodge a first information report in the police station, and then alone the case could he investigated by the police. The Superintendent of Police endorsed the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and it was put up before the District Magistrate on the 11th of February, 1958, who directed the Superintendent of Police to take action, as suggested by him, for the institution of a case for investigation by the police. Against the above order, the complainant moved the Sessions Judge of Shahabad, who, on the 20th of March 1958, directed further inquiry to be made by the District Magistrate himself. The District Magistrate, however, refused to follow the direction of the Sessions Judge, and referred back the matter again to the Superintendent of Police to take action as suggested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as stated above. The complainant again moved the Sessions Judge of Shahabad, but his application was summarily dismissed by him on the 18th of April, 1958. Against the above order of the Sessions Judge, an application was filed in this Court, which was numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 129 of 1958, and this Court directed further inquiry to be made by the Additional District Magistrate of Shahabad, and also started a proceeding for contempt of Court against the District Magistrate for disobeying the orders of the Sessions Judge. The contempt proceeding, however, was dropped on submission of an unqualified apology by the District Magistrate. The case was, however, transferred by the District Magistrate on the 14th of August, 1958 to the Additional District Magistrate for further inquiry into the complaint. The Additional District Magistrate inquired into the matter, and, during the inquiry stage, examined witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant, who were also cross-examined by putting questions as suggested by the defence lawyer. He also examined one witness as a Court witness. Several documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the complainant as well as on behalf of the defence. According to the case of the complainant, the documents produced on behalf of the defence were produced in the absence of the complainant, and he had no opportunity to meet the same. The Additional District Magistrate also gathered information with regard to certain matter relevant to the case from the Secretary, Board of Secondary School Examination without the information of the complainant. Thereafter, arguments on behalf of both parties were heard by the Additional District Magistrate. He, then, made a long report against the truth of the case of the complainant, and, ultimately, dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the 3rd of April, 1959. The complainant moved the Sessions Judge of Shahabad for making a reference to this Court, but his revision application was dismissed by that Court on the 10th of November, 1959. The complainant, being thus aggrieved, has presented this application in this Court against the order of dismissal of his complaint petition.

(2.) A good deal of argument has been advanced before me by Counsel for the parties as to the scope of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of that section reads as follows;

(3.) Various authorities have been cited on behalf of both parties in support of their respective contentions. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on an unreported decision of this Court in Basant Rani Mishrain v. Emperor, Criminal Revn. No. 1215 of 1943 D/- 26-1-1944 (Pat); Radha Kishun Sao v. S.K. Misra, AIR 1949 Pat 36; Ramkisto Sahu v. State of Bihar, AIR 1952 Pat 125: Anil Kumar Saha v. Pranada Chakrabarty, AIR 1958 Cal 146; and Nga Tha Tu v. Emperor, 11 Ind Cas 249 (UB), and on behalf of the opposite parties on Ramanand Lal v. Ali Hassan, AIR 1924 Pat 797; Mahabir Baitha v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Pat 302; Jinilal Mandal v. Chanderdeo Prasad, AIR 1941 Pat 419; Ram Ekbal Singh v. Ramkhelawan, 1954 BLJR 351; Appa Rao Mudaliar v. Janakiammal, AIR 1927 Mad 19 (FB) and Manindar Nath v. Anil Chandra, AIR 1953 Cal 689.