Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 557 of 1968, decided on 6th June 1969.

, Ss. 4 (h) & 190(1)(c)--- Complainant disclosing no identity or address of accused‑Com plainant submitting corrected particulars of accused subsequently and Magistrate summoning such accused‑Contention: that Magistrate had no jurisdiction to summon or issue warrant against such accused in absence of a fresh complaint‑‑Held, nothing wrong in procedure adopted by Magistrate‑Accused could advance all contentions including that of delay in furnishing particulars at trial‑stage.

Abdus Sattar Molla v. The. Crown P L D 1953 F C 145 distinguished.

S. S. Haldar for Petitioner.

Nemo for the Opposite‑Parties.

Date of hearing : 5th June 1969.

In this Rule petitioner Mukunda Lal Biswas complains that he has been unnecessarily dragged to Court in pursuance of an order of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate of Satkhira directing issuance of warrant against him in Complaint Case No. 411‑C of 1965.

It appears that upon surrender the petitioner submitted a petition before the learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate pointing out that summons had earlier issued against one Mukunda Lal Mitra, and that for about two years and a quarter the said Mukunda Mitra was being unsuccessfully pursued by issuance of proclama tion and attachment proceedings and that it was only on the appearance of the complainant on 2‑11‑67 and upon his sub mission of another petition reiterating the allegations made in the complaint (upon which cognizance was taken on 21‑7‑65), seeking to furnish particulars of the accused that warrant was issued against him. In his said petition the petitioner prayed for being discharged on tile plea that it was upon a false excuse of furnishing particulars of the accused mentioned in the petition of complaint that the complainant succeeded in implicating him. This petition was rejected by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate on 6‑4‑48. The order rejecting the petition runs as follows:

" ...Perused the petition. Petition is rejected as the ground for discharge is not convincing."

Against the above order dated 6‑4‑68 the petitioner moved the Court of Session, but could not pursuade the learned Sessions Judge to make a reference to this Court.

It has been argued before me that the learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to summon or issue a warrant against the petitioner in the absence of a fresh complaint implicat ing the petitioner. In support of this contention the learned Advocate has relied upon the case of Abdus Sattar Molla (P L D 1953 F C 145). I find no relevancy either in the contention made in support of the rule or in the attempt to invoke the principles laid down in Abdus Sattar Molla's case. What has been decided in the reported case is that a Magistrate duly empowered in that regard can take cognizance against an offender under clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 190, Cr. P. C. but the accused must be ‑informed of his right to be tried by another Court in terms of section 191, Cr. P. C. That point is not involved in this Rule. Even if it could be said that cognisance against the petitioner was taken under clause (c.) of section 190 (1), Cr. P. C., that point can arise only when the stage of trial is reached. I find, therefore, no merit in the Rule.

I have glanced through the Magistrate's records. It appears that it was upon a complaint in writing made by the Executive Officer of the Agricultural Fish Firming Co‑operative Society at Debisahar alleging that he was manhandled by one Mukunda and four other named persons, summons were issued against some four persons including one Mukunda Lal Mitra. The complainant was not personally present before the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate at that stage. Cognizance in the case was obviously taken under proviso (aa) of section 200, Cr. P. C.

In the petition of complaint accused Mukunda was neither described as a Mitra nor as a Biswas, nor his address was supplied, as was not supplied the address of any of the four other persons complained against. The office, however, issued summons against Mukunda Lal Mitra. There is nothing before me to indicate that it was the complainant himself who furnished the particulars of accused Mukunda. It appears also that it was for the first time on 2‑11‑67 that the complainant attended the Court of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate on 2‑11‑67 in obedience to a summons served on him through the Registrar of the Co operative Society Government of East Pakistan. It was on this date, that is, on 2‑11‑67 it appears that the complainant got an opportunity of furnishing particulars of the accused, and accord ingly he gave particulars of the accused in a written petition mentioning the accused Mukunda of the petition of complaint as Mukunda Lal Biswas, son of late Satish Chandra Biswas of village Harikhali, P. S. Terokhanda, District Khulna. The contents of this petition arc also reflected in the order of the learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate which is dated 2‑11‑67. It says: "Complainant submits particulars about accused Mukunda Lal. Issue fresh warrant against Mukunda Lal. "The learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate appears to have been of the view that a wrong person had earlier been summoned against whom coercive processer had also been issued.

I find nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the learned Sub‑Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner Mukunda Lal Biswas will got enough opportunity at the stage of trial of advancing all his contentions including that on the apparent delay in supplying particulars upon which he was required to attend Court in connection with the case.

The Rule is accordingly discharged, as being premature.

Rule discharged.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.