Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Yakub Sheikh And Anr. Accused, v. The King Opposite Party.

Calcutta High Court

Sep 8, 1949

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Two accused were convicted of theft. The first accused, Yakub Sheikh, was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Half of the fine was directed to be paid to the complainant, Kalu Santal, as compensation. The second accused, Malek Sheikh, was dealt with under section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and released after admonition.

The prosecution case was that Kalu Santal, an adhiar of Charan Das Chatterjee, had grown and reaped paddy on certain land; the two accused persons allegedly removed paddy and straw despite protests. The defence denied the occurrence and contended that the land belonged to Yakub.

At trial the Magistrate disbelieved the defence and convicted the accused. On appeal the Additional District Magistrate criticised the trial Magistrate's judgment but ultimately upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

The present Rule challenges the trial on a pure point of law concerning the Magistrate's procedure after receipt of the complaint: the Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police with directions to "take cognisance" and investigate, and did not examine the complainant on oath under section 200 CrPC when the complaint was filed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a Magistrate, upon receipt of a complaint that discloses an offence and where there is no legal bar (e.g., under section 195 CrPC), is bound to take cognizance of the offence himself under section 190(1) CrPC rather than refer the matter to the police to "take cognizance" and investigate.
Whether a Magistrate who takes cognizance upon a complaint is bound to examine the complainant on oath under section 200 CrPC, and whether the failure to do so is fatal to jurisdiction.
Whether the procedural errors identified (referral to police to take cognizance; failure to examine complainant on oath) are mere irregularities curable under section 537 CrPC or are jurisdictional defects rendering the trial void.

Arguments of the Parties

Accused (Rule Applicants)

It was contended that the learned Magistrate committed legal errors in the trial process by sending the complaint to the police to "take cognizance" and by failing to examine the complainant on oath.
These errors, it was argued, were substantial and fatal to the Magistrate's jurisdiction, rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction.

Representing the Crown

The Advocate for the Crown argued that although irregularities occurred, they were curable under section 537 CrPC because the accused were not prejudiced by these irregularities.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
A.C Samaddar v. Suresh Chandra Jana	Interpreting section 190(1) CrPC: where a complaint of facts constituting an offence is filed and no legal bar exists, the Magistrate must take cognizance (the word "may" in the provision is construed as "must").	The court relied on this case to hold that the Magistrate should have taken cognizance of the complaint and therefore had no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the police to take cognizance and investigate.
Kashmiri Lal Garga v. Ismail	Support for the interpretation that the Magistrate's discretion under section 190(1) is effectively mandatory to take cognizance when a complaint is filed and no bar exists.	The court cited this case as authority supporting the construction of "may" as "must" in section 190(1), and relied on it in reaching the conclusion about the Magistrate's obligation to take cognizance.
Pulin Behari Ghosh v. The King	Confirms the approach that section 15(3) CrPC has no application where cognizance is taken upon a complaint, and supports the requirement to examine the complainant on oath under section 200 CrPC.	The court noted that this view (expressed by the Chief Justice and Das, J.) aligned with the present court's position that the Magistrate erred in sending the complaint to police and in not examining the complainant on oath.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court framed the issue as primarily one of law: whether the procedural steps taken by the Magistrate after receipt of the complaint were legally permissible. The court proceeded as follows.

Interpretation of section 190(1) CrPC: The court held that when a complaint of facts constituting an offence is filed and there is no statutory bar (for example under section 195 CrPC), the Magistrate is bound to take cognizance of the offence. Although section 190(1) uses the word "may," the court interpreted that word as "must" in that context because the subsection lists the exclusive circumstances under which cognizance may be taken. The court relied on its earlier decision in A.C Samaddar v. Suresh Chandra Jana and on Kashmiri Lal Garga v. Ismail for this interpretation.
Illegality of referring the matter to police to "take cognizance": Because the Magistrate should have taken cognizance himself, he had no jurisdiction to refer the complaint to the police with directions to "take cognizance" and investigate. The court found that reliance on section 15(3) CrPC by the Magistrate was misplaced as that subsection does not apply where cognizance is taken upon a complaint.
Requirement to examine complainant on oath under section 200 CrPC: The court held that once cognizance is taken upon a complaint, the Magistrate is bound to examine the complainant on oath immediately per section 200 CrPC. The failure to do so was characterized as fatal.
Jurisdictional nature of the errors: The court rejected the Crown's contention that the defects were curable under section 537 CrPC because they did not merely amount to irregularities. Instead, the court found these were illegalities affecting the Magistrate's jurisdiction (i.e., the Magistrate "really had no jurisdiction" to try the case based on a charge-sheet after a complaint had been filed, nor to refer the matter to police to take cognizance). Because the defects related to jurisdiction, they could not be cured as mere irregularities.
Conclusion drawn from the foregoing: On this basis the court concluded that the trial was without jurisdiction, rendering the conviction and sentence invalid.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court held that the trial was without jurisdiction and therefore set aside the order of conviction and sentence. The Rule was made absolute.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the conviction and sentence against the accused are set aside.
The court ordered that the case be retried by another Magistrate to be appointed by the District Magistrate. The new Magistrate shall try the case according to law and in the light of the observations made in this opinion.
The court treated the procedural errors as jurisdictional defects and therefore not curable as mere irregularities under section 537 CrPC.
No broader new precedent beyond the court's application of existing authorities was stated in the opinion; the court grounded its decision on the cited authorities and statutory interpretation set out above.

Opinion signed/initialed in the record as: N.D.R

Show all summary ...

1. This Rule has been obtained by the two accused who have been convicted of having committed theft. The first accused Yakub Sheikh has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The second accused Malek Sheikh has been dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sec. 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and released after due admonition. Half of the fine has been directed to be paid to Kalu Santal as compensation.

2. The case for the prosecution is that Kalu Santal was in possession of certain land as the adhiar of one Charan Das Chatterjee.

3. He grew paddy on the land and reaped it. On the date of occurrence the two accused persons came there and removed paddy and straw in spite of protests. The defence taken is a denial of the occurrence and it was contended on behalf of the defence that the land on which the paddy was grown belonged to the accused Yakub. The learned Magistrate has disbelieved the defence case and convicted the accused. On appeal the Additional District Magistrate has, after criticising the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate, somewhat adversely upheld the decision and dismissed the appeal.

4. The point raised before me is a pure point of law. It is said that the learned Magistrate has committed certain illegalities in the trial which are fatal and that, therefore, the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction. The facts which give rise to this contention are these: Kalu Santal lodged a petition of complaint before the Magistrate making the allegations which are the substance of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate passed an order upon the complaint in these terms: “Send this to O|C Kalna P.S for taking cognisance under sec. 379|147, I.P.C and finishing investigation early.” Upon this order being communicated to the police they investigated the case and returned a charge-sheet. Thereafter the accused were tried. I may mention here that on the petition of complaint being filed the complainant was not examined on oath.

5. It is contended that the learned Magistrate has erred in law in sending the matter to the police and asking the police to take cognizance. He has also erred in law in not examining the complainant on oath. In my opinion both these grounds are substantial. The law is quite clear on the point. When a complaint is filed before a Magistrate, unless there is any legal bar to the entertainment of the complaint such as is mentioned in sec. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and any other section, the Magistrate is bound to take cognizance of the offence. He has no option in the matter. Sec. 190 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quite clear. It says that a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer, and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer; the word “may” here means “must.” The word “may” is used because there are three separate sets of circumstances laid down upon which cognizance may be taken. This is the view I held in the case of A.C Samaddar v. Suresh Chandra Jana(1), relying upon the case of Kashmiri Lal Garga v. Ismail(2). In this case the Magistrate should have taken cognizance of the complaint as there was no legal bar against taking such cognizance. That being so, he had no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the police directing the police to take cognizance and investigate. The learned Magistrate apparently relied upon the provisions of sec. 15 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That sub-section has no application whatsoever in a case where cognizance is taken upon a complaint. This view was also expressed by me in the above-mentioned case and I find that the same view has been taken in the case of Pulin Behari Ghosh v. The King(3) by the Chief Justice and Das, J.

6. Next, the learned Magistrate when he takes cognizance upon a complaint is bound under the provisions of sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine the complainant on oath at once. The failure to do this is fatal. This was held in the above-mentioned two cases. It is thus clear that the Magistrate has committed several illegalities in this case.

7. It was argued by learned Advocate appearing for the Crown that although the facts disclosed that the Magistrate had committed certain irregularities, they were curable by virtue of the provisions of sec. 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the accused were not prejudiced by these irregularities. In my opinion this argument cannot be accepted. These are not mere irregularities but illegalities which affect the question of jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate really had no jurisdiction to try the case upon a charge-sheet once the petition of complaint was filed, nor did he have any jurisdiction to refer the matter to the police in order that the police might take cognizance of the offence. These errors relate to jurisdiction and are not mere irregularities.

8. In my opinion, the trial has been without jurisdiction and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence must be set aside. The case shall be retried by some other Magistrate to be appointed by the District Magistrate for this purpose. He shall try the case according to law and in the light of the observations made above. The Rule is made absolute.

N.D.R