RAMSAGAR SINGH Vs. CHANDRIKA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Patna, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recommending (1) expunction of certain adverse remarks made against Thakur Ramsagar Singh, Additional Deputy Superintendent, Patna Medical College Hospital, by Mr. B.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in his judgment dated 15th January, 1960, in G.R. Case No. 218 of 1959, State v. Chandrika Prasad and (2) quashing the proceeding under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts are these. At about 3 a.m. on 3rd February, 1959, Amina Khatun (P.W. 3) saw Chandrika Prasad, who has also been described as Chandrika Singh, carrying certain surgical instruments and drugs from the Eye Department o the Patna Medical College Hospital and raised alarm. He was pursued by her and Kara Ram (P.W. 1), Durga Ram (P.W. 2), Kishori (P.W. 5) and Jagan Narain Singh (P.W. 6). They succeeded in overpowering and apprehending him. He was thus caught red-handed with three instruments and some drugs. The aforesaid employees of the hospital produced him before Thakur Ramsagar Singh, Additional Deputy Superintendent, Patna Medical College Hospital, and reported to him how he was caught while stealthily carrying away the instruments and drugs. Chandrika Singh is alleged to have confessed his guilt before the Deputy Superintendent, who made a written report of the occurrence to the Sub Inspector of Police, mentioning therein the fact of confession. After investigation, the police charge-sheeted Chandrika Singh, and he was tried by Mr. B.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, who by his order dated 15th January, 1960, acquitted him. In course of his judgment, he made the following remarks against the Deputy Superintendent:

(2.) At the same time, the Magistrate also drew up a proceeding against Thakur Ramsagar Singh and issued summons to him to appear before him and show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused. It is this order also which the Sessions Judge recommends to be quashed.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out, and Mr. Rasbehari Singh appearing in support of the reference has reiterated that those remarks are wholly uncalled for and unwarranted on the evidence. There is absolutely no foundation for the Magistrate to call him an unreliable witness. It will be observed that Thakur Ramsagar Singh is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He simply reported to the police what had been stated before him by his subordinate officers. The learned Magistrate calls him unreliable, because he omitted to verify the truth of the allegations made by his subordinates against Chandrika Singh and denied that he had injuries on his person, though other witnesses admitted the existence of injuries. None of these circumstances justifies the remark that he was unreliable. There was no legal obligation upon him to hold a preliminary enquiry before making a report to the police. Prima facie, he had no reasons to disbelieve what his subordinates reported to him, especially when Chandrika Singh had been caught red-handed with the instruments and drugs and had also been produced before him. At the worst, it was a mere unintentional omission on his part. Omission is not falsity, and if a man omits to do a thing, he is not necessarily a liar. As to the injuries, when the other prosecution witnesses had admitted their existence, there was no point in Thakur Ramsagar Singh's denial that Chandrika Singh had injuries on his person. It is not the evidence of Thakur Ramsagar Singh that he examined Mm before he forwarded him to the police. There is no reason why he will knowingly suppress those injuries, which had no bearing on the prosecution case. Thakur Ramsagar Singh denied in his cross-examination that he saw any injury on his person, and there is nothing to show that he had in fact seen the injuries- After going through judgment of the learned Magistrate and the evidence in the record, I find no material, and none has been placed before me, to justify the remark that he was unreliable. The first remark is without foundation.