SARJU RAM Vs. HARIHAR RAM TEWARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the case of the petitioner, the opposite parties committed various kinds of offences in that they illegally arrested him and kept him under wrongful confinement under chain and handcuffs for a period of about 2 months commencing from the 29th of May, 1966 and ending on the 23rd of July, 1966. It is not necessary for me to state the facts in any detail. Suffice it to say that according to the case of the petitioner, when he was rescued by the police on 23-7-1966 from the wrongful confinement, he made a statement upon which a case was instituted and first information report was drawn up. In the said case being Birni P. S. Case No. 4 (7) 66 under Sections 147, 344 and 365 of the Penal Code after investigation the police submitted a final report on 9-1-1967. On the same date the petitioner filed a petition in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Giridih. It is necessary to quote the contents of that petition in full-

(2.) The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, by his order dated 6-4-19G7, accepted the police report and discharged the accused from the operation of the bail bond. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1967 which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Hazaribagh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also took the view that there was no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate in accepting the final report submitted by the police. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the protest petition filed by him on 9-1-1967 ought to have been treated as a petition of complaint, he ought to have been examined on solemn affirmation in accordance with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) and thereafter the petition ought to have been dealt with in accordance with the other sections occurring in Chapter XVI of the Code. The contention on behalf of the opposite party is that the petition filed by the petitioner on 9-1-1967 was not a petition of complaint either in form or in effect or substance and hence the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate committed no error in not treating it as such.