P N S AIYAR Vs. KJNATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C.C. No. 1292 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate is the petitioner in this criminal revision case, which is to revise the order of the learned Magistrate dated 9 June, 1947, dismissing the complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that there were no sufficient reasons to proceed with it, any further. The lower Court took the complaint on file and forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Police for investigation under Section 202 and for the submission of a report by 16 of May, 1947. Accordingly, the police enquired into the matter and submitted their report to the lower Court. After considering this report, the learned Magistrate found that there was no justification for proceeding with the complaint and dismissed the same.

(2.) It may be stated at the outset that the complaint was not an oral one, but had been reduced to writing before presentation to the Court and its contents were read over and explained to the complainant on the and May, 1947, when it was presented; and he admitted the same to be correct on solemn affirmation adminis-tered in the presence of the learned Magistrate. According to the record of the proceedings before the lower Court, it is found that the complainant was not examined on oath by the Chief Presidency Magistrate.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended before me, that it was obligatory on the Magistrate to examine the complainant on oath under the provisions of seetion 200, Criminal Procedure Code, before postponement of the issue of pro-cess and directing investigation by the police officer; and in this case, since such a course had not been followed by the Magistrate, his procedure in rejecting the complaint under Section 203 is illegal. The question therefore for consideration is how far the provisions of Section 200 read with proviso to Section 202 are applicable to the facts of the present case. Section 200, proviso (b) lays down that where the Magistrate is a Presidency Magistrate, the examination contemplated by the earlier portion of the section may or may not be on oath as the Magistrate in each case thinks fit. But in any case, unlike any other Magistrate, who when taking cognizance of an offence on complaint, is obliged to examine the complainant on oath, a Presidency Magistrate is given the discretion to dispense with the exami-nation on oath but the power is not given to him to completely do away with, any kind of examination at all. What has happened before the learned Presidency Magistrate in the case in question, is that the contents of the complaint were admitted to be correct on solemn affirmation by the complainant. It cannot be said that this is an examination of the complainant either on oath or otherwise. All that the complainant has done is, to state before the Court that the averments mentioned in the complaint are true and nothing more. The exami-nation of the complainant signifies that the Magistrate ought to interrogate him on the allegations or averments contained in the complaint to test whether they are prima facie true or not. Nothing like that has been done in the present case.