SAHDEO DAS Vs. LILA DAI KISKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Purnea. dated the 13th of August, 1976 whereby processes (bailable warrant of arrest) were issued against the petitioners. The application was originally listed for hearing before M. M. Prasad, J. After hearing the application for three days, Prasad, J. referred this application for hearing before a Division Bench. The application was accordingly listed before us for final disposal.

(2.) The facts essential for disposal of the present application are that in September, 1970 jute and maize crops from the field of the complainant, Lila Dai Kisku were dishonestly cut and removed. On 6.5.1971 she filed a complaint before Subdivisional Magistrate, Purnea in which she alleged that the petitioners had committed theft of her jute and maize crops worth Rs. 1500. On 7.5.1971 the Subdivisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation. By order of the very same date the learned Magistrate referred the matter for inquiry and report to Mr. John Murmu, Magistrate Purnea, who examined two witnesses but failed to submit any report. The matter was sent to different Magistrates for inquiry and report. Suffice it to say no report was received by the Subdivisional Magistrate. The question relating to issuance of processes was ktpt hanging fire without any progress. In April, 1974 the new Code came into force. Consequent upon coming into force of the new Code, the file was placed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. On 13.8.1976 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate further examined the complainant perused the statements of witnesses examined in her support before Mr. John Murmu and issued processes against the petitioners by order, dated 13.8.1976.

(3.) The first submission urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had erred in law and in fact acted without jurisdiction in looking into the evidence of witnesses examined before Mr. John Murmu. I am unable to see any force in this submission. The order for inquiry by Mr. Murmu was certainly not without jurisdiction. The recording of evidence by him was, therefore, within the framework of law. The fact that Mr. Murmu did not submit any report could not wipe out the existence of the statements of the witnesses examined by him. They were very much part of the record and any Magistrate succeeding the Subdivisional Magistrate was not only entitled but was in fact bound to peruse the entire records before deciding whether processes should issue or not. In my view, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed no error in looking into the evidence of witnesses examined by Mr. Murmu. I should add that the Chief Judicial Magistrate relied not only upon the evidence of such of those witnesses, but he also examined the complainant himself. No exception can be taken, therefore, to the course adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The submission in this behalf urged by counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any substance and must be rejected.