GURU PROSAD RAM GUPTA Vs. RAMESWAR MARWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this ease, a rule was issued upon the District Magistrate Burdwan, and also upon the complainant to show cause why the proceedings under Section 500, I.P.C., against the petitioners should not be quashed or such other order made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The petitioner Ramkissen lodged an information at the thana on 19 July 1936 that he went to the firm of Keshabram and demanded some money due to his master; that he was an employee of the firm of Kuarram Jharilal of Ranigunge, an altercation ensued and Rameswar Lal Marwari snatched away his cloth bag containing. Rs. 378.4-6 and assaulted him. An enquiry was made and all the accused were charged under Section 323, I.P.C. and Rameswar Marwari was, in addition to that section, charged under Section 379, I.P.C. The Magistrate found the four accused guilty and sentenced them to pay fines of Rs. 50 each under Section 323,I.P.C. and found Rameswar Marwari guilty under Section 379,I.P.C. On appeal, the Sessions Judge found that the story of theft had been falsely added to the charge of assault and therefore he set aside the conviction for assault. Then on 11 August, the complainant lodged a com. plaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate charging the petitioners with an offence under Section 500, I.P.C. on the ground that by reason of the allegations of theft made against him he had been lowered in public estimation and the business of his firm has suffered. The petitioners were accordingly summoned under Section 500, I.P.C. and it is in consequence of that that this application has been made. The ground on which this rule is urged is that as the present prosecution is designed to avoid the provisions of Section 195, Criminal P. C, the prosecution should not be allowed to proceed. For the petitioners, the case in Prafulla Kumar V/s. Harendra Nath (1917) 4 AIR Cal 708 has been referred to. In that case, the learned Judge has held (head-note): Where an offence, though described as an offence under Section 500 of the Penal Code, still remains an offence punishable under Section 211. Process should not issue under the former section on the application of a person discharged or acquitted, when the Court has refused sanction under the latter section.

(2.) The reason given by the learned Judge for this view of the law is that if, after sanction has been refused, prosecution under Section 500 was allowed, the provisions of B. 195, Criminal P.C., will be nugatory. The case taken to protect "complainants" from being harassed by prosecutions for instituting false cases is a clear indication that the Legislature never intended or contemplated that upon refusal of leave to prosecute under Section 211, a person who has been discharged or acquitted should be allowed to fall back upon Section 500.

(3.) This decision was referred to in a Full Bench decision in Satish Chandra V/s. Ram Dayal (1921) 8 AIR Cal 1. There the Acting Chief Justice has discussed the matter as follows: The maker of a single statement may be guilty of two distinct offences, one under Section 211 (which is an offence against public justice) and the other an offence under Section 499, wherein the personal element largely predominates. The Legislature has provided, in the Criminal Procedure Code that the sanction of the Court where the offence is committed, is essential in the former case for the institution of criminal proceedings. In the latter case the Legislature has omitted to make a similar provision. This diversity, for ought we know, may have been deliberate and plainly affords no reason why the Court should struggle to hold that the statement does not fall within the mischief of the rule embodied in Section 499. The two offences are fundamentally distinct in nature, as is patent from the fact that the former is made non-compoundable while the latter remains compoundable; in the former case for the initiation of the proceedings, the Legislature requires the sanction of the Court under Section 195, Criminal P.C.; in the latter case, cognizance can be taken of the offence only upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved under Section 198, Criminal P.C.