SURENDRA NATH JANA Vs. KUMEDA CHARAN MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present rule is on behalf of one Surendra Nath Jana and is directed against an order of the District Judge dated 2 August, 1929, directing that a complaint should be drawn up against the petitioner under Secs.465 and 471, I.P.C. This order of the District Judge was made upon an appeal from the order of the Munsiff who had already refused to make such an order. THE main ground placed before us is that the order is bad in law, inasmuch as there is no finding by the Court of appeal below that it is expedient in the interests of justice that a complaint should be made. We have examined the record and it is conceded that on the face of the appellate Court's judgment no such finding is recorded. But it is said that there is a finding that a clear prima facie case has been made and that coupled with the fact that a complaint has been ordered is sufficient to enable the Court to infer that the opinion of the lower appellate Court was that it was expedient in the interests of justice that such an enquiry should be made. THE matter is really on the same footing as disclosed in the case of Keramat Ali V/s. Emperor , where the learned Chief Justice said: I look in vain for any recorded finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence....

(2.) THAT is the position in which we find ourselves in the present case and it is not possible to say that an express statutory provision for a finding to be recorded is satisfied by inferences which may or may not be drawn from other findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court. The result, therefore, is that the order of the District Judge is set aside and this rule made absolute.