DINANATH SAHAY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to us by Verma J. by his order dated 28 April 1938 on the ground that there is no reported Division Bench authority of this Court which covers the question raised herein. The facts which are necessary to elucidate the matter in controversy are extremely simple and may be stated thus: On 12 November 1937 Dinanath Sahay lodged an information before the police regarding theft of a tin box said to contain some miscellaneous articles worth about Rs. 4/12 and certain documents. As the result of the investigation the police took the view that the complainant had lodged the information knowing and believing it to be false, intending thereby to cause a public servant to do a thing,. which such public servant ought not to do if the true state of facts respecting which such information was given were known to him and to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance, of the suspects and lodged a complaint under Section 182, I.P.C., against the petitioner Dinanath before the Subdivisional Officer who, on taking cognizance issued a warrant of arrest against the accused on 25 November 1937.

(2.) The accused appeared on 8 December and on that date the ingredients of the offence were explained to him in the manner laid down for the trial of a summons case. Upon the accused pleading not, guilty, the learned Magistrate ordered that the witnesses for the prosecution should be-summoned for 20th December. As all the witnesses were not present on that date, the learned Magistrate, upon his view, "as this is a summons case it is desirable to examine all the witnesses on the same date" adjourned the case to 12 January 1938 for which the witnesses for the prosecution were again summoned to attend and also directed the accused to adduce his defence evidence on the same date On 12th. January 1938 the prosecution witnesses, were present but before their examination, actually began, the accused put in a petition to the learned Magistrate complaining,: that although he made an application, asking for a copy of the final report in the case, which is the basis of the complaint, against him, he had not been supplied any; copies so far. He also stated in that petition, that he is not in possession of the statements of the witnesses in the police diary, and therefore he prayed that the Court; may be pleased to order the copies to be given to him before he is, asked to cross- examine the witnesses. As it is extremely difficult to cross-examine the witnesses without copies of the above documents the cross-examination may kindly be postponed.

(3.) The learned Magistrate upon that petition passed the following order. "The A.S.I. will show the final report to the accused before the case is taken up." Thereafter the-witnesses for the prosecution were examined-and cross-examined by the accused without his being in possession either of a copy of the final report or of the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The accused was not ready with his defence witnesses and the Court adjourned the case to 24 January 1938, on which date he examined two witnesses and on their being cross-examined, the case was adjourned to 29 January for passing of orders. On 1 February 1938 an order was passed convicting the accused under Section 182, I.P.C., and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200; An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Appellate Court summarily on 23 February 1938. Against these orders this Court has been moved in revision.