TMI Blog1961 (1) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were tenants of Respondent Rameshwar Lal Bazaz, owner of the premises in Holding No. 56 of Ward 6 of the Gauhati Municipal Board. A dispute had arisen between the Appellants and Respondent Rameshwar Lal Bazaz concerning this holding which led to criminal and civil proceedings. The civil suit filed by the Respondent Rameshwar Lal Bazaz was Title Suit No. 21 of 1958, and the civil suit filed by the Appellants was Title Suit No. 78 of 1957. One of the criminal proceedings was under Section 145, which was compromised on 24-5-1957, resulting in a Hath Chitha in favour of the Appellants fixing a monthly rent of ₹ 125 for the first floor of the holding in question. The ground floor was already leased out to the Appellants at ₹ 325 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Bazaz filed his complaint on 3-8-1957, before the Addl. District Magistrate against the Appellants for offences alleged to have been committed by them under Sections 147, 323, 342 and 448 of the IPC. On this complaint the Addl. District Magistrate made the following endorsement; To Shri C. Thomas, Magistrate 1st Class for disposal. 4. Mr. Thomas on receiving the complaint directed the Officer Incharge of Gauhati Police Station To register a case, investigate and if warranted submit charge-sheet by 23-8-1957. The police, after investigation, on 10-10-1957, submitted a charge-sheet against the Appellants under Section 448 of the IPC only to the Addl. District Magistrate. On receiving the charge-sheet, the Addl. District Magistrate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minal Procedure the complaint to Mr. Thomas for disposal. In these circumstances, it must be assumed that the Additional District Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint and Mr. Thomas had no authority to refer the case to the police for investigation. He was bound to have examined the complainant on oath and then proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which applied to disposal of complaints. Mr. Thomas had no authority in law to send the complaint under Section 156(3) to the police for investigation. It was urged that Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets out how cognizance may be taken of an offence. Section 130(1)(a) authorizes a Presidency Magistrate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complaint to Mr. Thomas by way of an administrative action, presumably because Mr. Thomas was the Magistrate before whom ordinarily complaints should be filed. 9. When the complaint was received by Mr. Thomas on 3-8-1957, his order, which we have already quoted, clearly indicates that he did not take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint but had sent the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code to the Officer Incharge of Police Station Gauhati for investigation. Section 156(3) states Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such investigation as above mentioned . Mr. Thomas was certainly a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance under Section 190 and he was empowered to take cognizance of an offence upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Magistrate should be wasted when primarily the duty to investigate in cases involving cognizable offences is with the police. On the other hand, there may be occasions when the Magistrate may exercise his discretion and take cognizance of a cognizable offence. If he does so then he would have to proceed in the manner provided by Ch. XVI of the Code. Numerous cases were cited before us in support of the submissions made on be half of the Appellants. Certain submissions were also made as to what is meant by taking cognizance . It is unnecessary to refer to the ceses(sic) cited. The following observations of Mr. Justice Das Gupta in the case of Supdt. Remembrancer of Legal affairs, west Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee AIR 1950 Cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oved by this Court in the case of Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. The State of West Bengal (1960) 1 SCR 93. It will be clear, therefore, that in the present case neither the Additional District Magistrate nor Mr. Thomas applied his mind to the complaint filed on 3-8-1957, with a view to taking cognizance of an offence. The Addl. District Magistrate passed on the complaint to Mr. Thomas to deal with it. Mr. Thomas seeing that cognizable offences were mentioned in the complaint did not apply his mind to it with a view to taking cognizance of any offence; on the contrary in his opinion it was a matter to be investigated by the police under Section 156(3) of the Code. The action of Mr. Thomas crimes within the observations of Mr. Justice D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
