ALI HASSAN Vs. KAMLA PRASAD SINHA MUNSIF MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by one AH Hassan, a compounder attached to Araria Sub-divisional Hospital in the district of Purnea, with a prayer to quash the order dated 14-9-1967, passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Araria in case No. 52C (c) of 1967 by which he took cognizance of the offence under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on the petition of complaint of Shri K. P. Sinha, Munsif-Magistrate, Araria.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that one Ganesh Narain Jha of Araria Police station was stabbed on 5-5-1967 and his injuries were examined by Shri G. K. Thakur, Second Medical Officer, Araria. After submission of the charge sheet the case was transferred to Shri K. P. Sinha, Munsif-Magistrate for trial. The doctor was examined in the case before the Munsif-Magistrate on 2-8-1967. The Medical certificate granted by the doctor in respect of the injuries of Ganesh Narain Jha was shown to him when he was being examined in the case and he noticed interpolation in the said certificate inasmuch as he had estimated the age of the injuries as 6 hours and it was so noted in the certificate itself but the certificate showed the age of the injuries as 246 hours. The hospital copy of the certificate was called for and the petitioner-compounder produced the certified copy of the certificate signed by Dr. Prasad. The certified copy indicated the injuries to be 24 hours old. Thereafter the petitioner was summoned to appear in Court in connection with the enquiry started by the Munsif-Magistrate under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the petitioner in pursuance of this process appeared before the said Munsif-Magistrate on 13-9-1967. He was examined as a witness in the miscellaneous case (No. 2 of 1967) of that Court. After the close of examination of the witness he was given his recorded deposition which he read and found that the certificate that was shown to him in the witness box contained the figure '246' in reference to which he had stated that the digit '6' was not legible and the digit '4' was legible but the recorded deposition showed the contrary and he prayed before the Court that necessary correction in the deposition be made before he could be directed to sign the deposition. His contention was that he had stated on reference to the certificate shown to him that the digit '6' was not legible and digit '4' was legible but the record showed the contrary. The learned Munsif-Magistrate however asserted that the deposition recorded by him was correct and there was no mistake in it and insisted on the petitioner to sign the deposition as recorded or else he would be taken in custody and the petitioner under the apprehension of being put into custody signed the deposition. The Court also said that if the petitioner wanted he could file a petition. Accordingly on the same day a petition was filed by the lawyer on behalf of the petitioner mentioning the circumstances under which the recorded deposition was signed by him and the learned Magistrate felt agitated over it and sent a petition of complaint to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Araria for taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code and this was done by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Araria on 14-9-1967 and the petitioner was summoned by Mr. P. Jha, Munsif-Magistrate before whom the case was transferred for disposal.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that there was no case, much less any prima facie case of contempt under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the cognizance taken was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. An application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for reference to this Court on the said ground was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea and the petition was summarily rejected on 25-9-1967, whereupon the petitioner has filed this present application.