Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 67‑D of 1968, decided on 23rd August 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 9th May 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 769 of 1967).
Ss. 147 & 431‑On private complaint Magistrate drawing up proceeding under S. 144, Cr. P. C. and after lapsing of statutory life of order under S. 144 issuing summons to accused for offences under Ss. 147 & 431, P. P. C. Contention that order parsed by Magistrate was illegal because complainant had not been examined under S. 202, Cr. P. C. Held : Cognizance could lawfully be taken by Magistrate under S. 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. and examination of accused, in circumstance, was not necessary.
K. A. Bakar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. W. Miah, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 23rd August 1968.
‑On a complaint made by a private individual for drawing up proceedings under section 107/117(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners before us and also for the issuance of an order under section 144, Cr. P. C. to stop them from cutting or damaging the Thana Council Road, the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Noakhali drew up proceeding under. section 144, Cr. P. C. and ordered the Circle Officer, Beguganj to enquire into the matter and submit a report.
On the basis of the report of the Circle officer, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, after the lapse of the statutory life of the order under section 144, Cr. P. C. directed the issuance of summonses against the petitioners under sections 147 and 431 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
The petitioners challenged the validity of ‑the action of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate unsuccessfully before the Sessions Judge and then moved the High Court of East Pakistan in revision. The learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that no illegality had been committed by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate as the impugned order could have been validly issued under section 204, Cr. P. C.
The further objection to the validity of the order on the ground of non‑examination of the complainant on oath under sections 200 and 202 of Cr. P. C. was also found to be of no substance as the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate having take: cognizance of the offence on the basis of the report submitted by a public officer acting in the discharge of his official duty, was not bound to examine the complainant oil oath.
The same arguments have been advanced before us in support of this petition as to the validity of the action of the Sul7 Divkional Magistrate. We see no substance, however, in any of them, for cognizance could lawfully have been taken by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate even under section 190(I)(c), Cr. P. C. on, the basis of the information contained in the report of the Circle Officer and in such event no examination of complainant was necessary.
'This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Leave refused
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer