DURGA DAS RAKHIT Vs. UMESH CHANDRA SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has already once been before this Court under circumstances somewhat similar to those now before us. The petitioners were then being prosecuted for perjury and forgery, alleged to have been committed in proceedings taken before the Deputy Collector under the Land Acquisition Act? And for reasons stated by the Judges of the Criminal Bench of this Court, on a rule granted, the proceedings were quashed as premature and without jurisdiction. The Collector, finding that the bar has been removed because the Civil Court has, in his opinion, finally decided the matter under the Land Acquisition Act, has renewed his complaint before the Magistrate and he has put the offence under Section 177, Indian Penal Code, which is declared to be applicable to such proceedings by Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The complaint was made against two persons, Durga Das Rakhit, the lessor, and Abhoy Charan Dey, the lessee, claiming to hold a portion of the land taken, up under the Act, and they have been accused of having given false information within the terms of Section 177, Indian Penal Code, and Section 10, Land Acquisition Act, in certain written statements that they made to the Collector in response to a call from him under Section 9. We may first of all observe that neither in the complaint made by the Deputy Collector nor in hiss examination by the Magistrate has any reference been made to any particular statement made by either of the accused as being a false statement. The complaint is that the written statements put in were false. It is clear that those documents contained more than one statement of fact. We also. find that the Deputy Collector had not put in the written statements. upon which the Collector desired to proceed either with his written complaint or at the time of his examination by the Magistrate. The Magistrate, therefore, had not before him the facts constituting the offence regarding which he was called upon to act, and notwithstanding this, he issued processes for the attendance of the accused.

(3.) Now in this respect we think that the Magistrate has acted without proper discretion. He was bound to require from the complainant the written statements on which the proceedings were founded, and also to ascertain from the complainant the particular statement or statements on which the accusation was made.