CHANDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.5.2001 passed by Addl. Sess. Judge, I, Saharsa, in criminal revision No. 119/1999. By the aforesaid order the Sessions Judge set -aside the order of cognizance passed by Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, on 2.2.1999 in complaint case No. 536/1998.

(2.) RELEVANT facts in precise terms are that the revisionist before this court had filed the aforesaid complaint case alleging therein that a report filed by O.P.No.2 of this revision with Hindustan, Hindi Daily, making certain imputations regarding embezzlement of the fund of Vyapar Mandal was wrong or false and, hence, cognizance was sought to be taken against Navin Nishant the co - respondent of the Daily Hindustan. The Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance after enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. against which revision was filed before the Sessions Judge by the co - respondent and by the impugned judgment the Sessions Judge set -aside the cognizance order and remitted the case to the Judicial Magistrate for passing a fresh order.

(3.) SO far the first ground that a revision does not lie against the order of cognizance, the same being an interlocutory order, I am of the opinion that the word "interlocutory" has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code. So the question whether an order is an interlocutory order or a final order will depend on the circumstances of each and every particular case. An enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. culminates in an order passed under Section 203 or 204. The order under Section 203 is final and so, normally, revision lies against such orders. So far as the order under Section 204 is concerned, this order relates to the finding of the Magistrate that there is sufficient material to proceed against particular persons and then summons are directed to be issued. So if an order under Section 204 is passed on the basis of a police report, that will be an interlocutory order because the criminal proceeding commences pursuant to this order; but, so far the order under Section 204 passed, as a result of the enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C., that order shall be final, so far the criminal proceeding initiated under Section 202 Cr. P. C. is concerned. I am, therefore, of the opinion that order passed under Section 204 in the proceeding initiated under Section 202 Cr. P.C. shall be revisable. So far the second ground that the complaint filed by the revisionist could be decided only on the trial and not in the revision, I am of the opinion that Section 500 I.P.C. refers to a report made in bonafide belief that the report is correct and that it is in public interest. The moot point, therefore, was to consider whether a case under Section 500 I.P. C. was made out. Normally, if certain press reporters file any report with their connected daily in the bonafide belief and in the public interest, no motive can be imputed to reporters unless there is a deliberate attempt to indulge in character assassination. In the instant case, the report in question was based on information supplied to Navnit Nishant by a member of the Samta Party. Admittedly, Chandra Kumar Singh was the president of the Vyapar Mandal, Supaul, and accounts of this Vyapar mandal stood in the joint names of the President and the manager. So if certain amounts were withdrawn from the concerned banks, they must have been withdrawn under signatures of both the president and the manager. So the allegation of embezzlement, of course, may, prima facie, refer to both the manager and the president. In such circumstances, if a member of the political party gave certain information to the correspondent and the latter, in turn, reported the matter to his affilitated daily, prima facie, perhaps the correspondent was not so liable for any offence under Section 500 I. P.C. Of course, the magistrate in seisin of the enquiry under Section 202 should have taken into consideration the principles of law as enjoined by Section 500 I.P.C. The Sessions Judge, who passed the impugned judgment in the concerned revision, did not simply set -aside the cognizance order, rather he remitted the matter to the Magistrate to pass a fresh order in the light of law laid down under Section 500 I.P.C. So I do not think the impugned order was, in any way, illegal or improper. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this revision against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge does not carry very good reasons for interference.