GOPAL SINGH Vs. RAGHUNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the complainant who had brought a case against the opposite party by laying a first information report on 12 March 1933 alleging that Raghunath and others had damaged his crops by grazing a large number of cattle on them and had burnt his hut and looted some grains in it. These allegations were investigated by the police who examined some witnesses produced by the petitioner. The petitioner finding that the police did not seem favourably impressed with his case, petitioned the Sub-divisional Officer on 31st March 1933 for an opportunity to prove his case before the Magistrate.

(2.) The investigation remained pending with the police until 8 April 1933. when a final report "false" was submitted with a complaint for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 211. This was put up before the Sub-divisional Officer with the petitioner's application of 31 March on 10 April. Treating that application as a complaint the Magistrate examined the petitioner on solemn affirmation and then dismissed his complaint. He observed with reference to the petitioner's prayer to be allowed to prove his case before the Magistrate that complainant may prove his case at the trial, that is to say, at the trial in which the petitioner was to be an accused under Section 211. The Sessions Judge was moved to order further inquiry and by his order dated 17 May 1933, he refused to do so on the ground that there was no flaw or irregularity in the procedure of the learned Magistrate.

(3.) The Sessions Judge did not consider the question whether it was desirable in fact and on the merits of this particular case that the truth or falsity of the allegations of the complainant should be determined by a Magistrate after hearing evidence, rather, than that the decision should be governed entirely by opinions expressed by police officers. This was a matter to which it was desirable that the Sessions Judge should give consideration. It is certainly not desirable that in all cases the opinion of a police officer should be accepted as the last word on question of fact. The decision of such questions has been entrusted by law to the Magistracy and the Magistrates should not abdicate their functions in this respect entirely in favour of the police.