HARBANS SINGH Vs. DAROGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against acquittal by the complainant under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appearing on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Verma has taken a preliminary point. His contention is that the appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as the case was not "instituted upon complaint."

(2.) The facts of the case, so far as they are necessary for deciding the preliminary point, are short. On the 12th January, 1956, appellant Harbans Singh lodged a first information report (Exhibit 3) at Phulwari police station relating to an occurrence on the 11th January, 1956. A copy of this first information report was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and he appears to have seen the copy on the 13th January, 1956, when G. R. Case No. 98 of 1956 was started on its basis. On the 10th February, 1956, while the police investigation was going on Harbans Singh filed a protest petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who treated it as a complaint and examined Harbans Singh on solemn affirmation on the same date. Case No. 43/C/56 was started on its basis. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered the matter to be put up with connected case record on the 14th February, 1950.

(3.) The police, after investigation, prepared chargesheet in the case on the 19th April, 1956. The chargesheet was placed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 18th May, 1956, but he could not pass any order as the record of the case was in this Court. On the 6th June, he received the record and ordered the case to be transferred to a Magistrate named Mr. B.N. Tiwary for disposal. Mr. B.N. Tiwary proceeded to hold commitment enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Section 207-A of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Tiwary ultimately committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court by his order dated the 4th July, 1956. The trial was held by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge of Patna who, by his order dated the 1st December, 1956, acquitted all the accused persons who are the respondents in this appeal.