CHINGURUPATI VENKATASUBBA RAO Vs. NARAHARISETTY ANJANEYALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise an order of the learned Sessions Judge of West Godavari directing further enquiry into a complaint of kidnapping. This complaint of kidnapping had been originally made to the Police on 15 March, 1931. The Police sent a referred charge- sheet to the Sub-divisional Magistrate who ordered the Police to put in a charge-sheet. In reply to this the Police again put in a referred charge-sheet; meanwhile the Sub-divisional Magistrate who passed the order directing a charge-sheet to be put in was succeeded by another. The latter agreed with the Police and by his order on 27 June, 1931, directed the case to be treated as one of a civil nature. An application to revise this order was made before the Sessions Judge who ordered further enquiry into the complain and it is against this order that this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) The matter really turns upon the question as to whether the Sub-divisional Magistrate who directed the Police to put in a charge-sheet took cognizance of the case or not. The view of the learned Sessions Judge was that he took cognizance and that therefore the case could not be disposed of by the order of his successor accepting the referred, charge-sheet and remained pending. It is agreed both by Mr. Jayarama Aiyar who argued the case for the petitioner and by Mr. Bewes for the Crown - and it is quite obvious--that the order directing the Police who had put in a referred charge-sheet to put in a charge sheet was not a legal order. The Police must be allowed to form their own opinion of a case when submitting their report and a Magistrate cannot ask them to change their opinion merely because he does not agree with them. In this case the Police were quite entitled to do what they subsequently did, and I think they were right, when they still entertained their former opinion, to submit another referred charge-sheet instead of a charge-sheet. It is clear from the Code and is not disputed that there are only two matters which the Sessions Judge can revise; under Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, he can direct further enquiry to be made into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-section (3) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged.

(3.) The first point urged for the petitioner is that there was no complaint before the Magistrate. With that contention I agree. There are only three ways in which a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence and they are described in Section 190, Criminal Procedure Code: (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer; and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, or suspicion, that such offence has been committed.