EMPEROR Vs. JOGESHWAR PASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 432 of the Criminal P. C. by the Presidency Magistrate of the Northern Division of Calcutta in which he has submitted for the opinion of this Court the following question, namely, whether he Ms jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry into the case of a person accused Of an offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code after the Coroner of Calcutta has drawn up an, inquisition under Section 24 of the Coroners Act, IV of 1871, bound down the witnesses under Section 25 of that Act and committed the accused to prison under Section 26.

(2.) That is the main question that arises for determination upon the Presidency Magistrate's reference; and there are the following subsidiary questions also submitted by the Magistrate in his reference for our opinion, namely, (i) whether the order for bail passed by him in the case of the accused Jogeshwar Passi is still operative, or whether the Magistrate is at liberty, if he considered it to be necessary, to pass a fresh order for bail; (ii) if afters enquiry into the case he acquits Jogeshwar Passi or discharges him, would that order be effective by its inherent force as in ordinary cases tried or inquired into by the Magistrate; and (iii) is the Crown entitled to ask the Magistrate to commit Jogeshwar Passi for a second time, when one of the two commitments, if what has been done by the Coroner has the effect of a commitment, must be superfluous.

(3.) The questions that arise for determination in this reference are not altogether free from doubt and difficulty. The Coroners Act which is a special enactment is, as Section 1 of the Criminal P. C. provides, unaffected by that Code. On the other hand there is nothing in the Coroners Act which affects the jurisdiction of the Presidency Magistrate under the Criminal P. C.. And the result may be, as we think it is in this case, the existence of two concurrent jurisdictions one in the Coroner and the other in the Presidency Magistrate, to deal with the same matter, though in modes somewhat different in certain respects. This simultaneous exercise of two concurrent jurisdictions may lead to conflict and anomaly such as have been indicated in the Magistrate's reference, and to avoid this the view which the Magistrate is apparently inclined to take, is, that he is ousted of his jurisdiction after the inquisition is drawn up by the Coroner and the accused is taken into custody or released on bail, if the drawing up of the inquisition by the Coroner against the accused person is to have the effect of a commitment of the accused to the High Court in the exercise of its Original Criminal Jurisdiction.