BALAI LALL MOOKERJEE Vs. PASHUPATI CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule which was granted to show cause why the order of the Magistrate by which he dismissed the complaint should not be set aside.

(2.) The grounds upon which the Rule has been supported are two: first, that the procedure which is laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed by the learned Magistrate and, secondly, that if the procedure had been followed by the Magistrate, and if he had confined himself to the materials which he would have had before him if such procedure had been followed, then upon such materials he ought to have issued process.

(3.) With regard to the first point, we are both of opinion that the procedure laid down by the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed in two material respects, and we wish to say that we think it is most desirable that Magistrates should follow the procedure which is quite clearly laid down in Chapter XVI dealing with complaints to Magistrates. It is not necessary for me to recapitulate here what is laid down, as plainly as it could possibly be, in Sections 200, 201, 202 and 203. The first irregularity was that the Magistrate directed an investigation to be made by a Police Officer, without having recorded his reasons for his not being satisfied as to the truth of the complaint. Section 202 says that if the Magistrate is not satisfied as to the truth of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance, he may, when the complainant has been examined, record his reasons, and may then postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and either inquire into the case himself or direct a previous local investigation to be made by any officer subordinate to such Magistrate, or by a Police Officer.... "It is not necessary for me to dwell at any length upon this matter, because so long ago as 1886, this matter was dealt with by this Court in the case of Baidyanath Singh v. Muspratt 14 c. 141 where the learned Judges said: "it is clear to us that under Section 202 if he distrusts the statement of the complainant he must record Ms reasons. In any case he is bound to record his reasons for distrusting the complaint. That appears to us to be quite reasonable." I not only follow that ruling, but I think it is a perfectly right and reasonable ruling, and 1 do not see any reason why Magistrates should not follow that which is laid down by the Statute and by the decisions of this Court.