- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rasik Tatma v. Bhagwat Tanti
Factual and Procedural Background
Bhagwat Tanti filed a complaint in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Madhipura, against Rasik Tatma and three others, alleging forcible uprooting of wheat crops from his land. The Sub-divisional Magistrate summoned the accused Rasik and subsequently transferred the case to the Honorary Magistrate, First Class, Madhipura. The Magistrate allowed bail to the accused and summoned prosecution witnesses. On the next hearing date, 16th March 1954, the Magistrate acquitted the accused under section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr PC) due to the complainant's absence. Later, the complainant appeared and petitioned to revive the case. On 2nd April 1954, the Magistrate passed an order reviving the case. Rasik Tatma then applied to the District Magistrate to refer the matter to the High Court to set aside the revival order. The District Magistrate referred the matter to the High Court for quashing the proceedings against Rasik Tatma.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a case can be revived or restored after the accused has been acquitted under section 247 of the Cr PC.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ram Mahto v. Emperor, 2 Pat LT 170 : AIR 1921 Pat 311 | An order under section 247 Cr PC is a final order of acquittal operating as a bar under section 403 Cr PC to trial for the same offence. | The Court applied this principle to hold that the acquittal barred revival of the case. |
| Kiran Barkar v. Emperor, 5 Pat LT 15 : AIR 1924 Pat 140 | Same principle as above regarding finality of acquittal under section 247 Cr PC. | Reinforced the Court's conclusion on the finality of acquittal and bar to trial. |
| Jaikaran Jha v. Dukhan Paswan, Ori, Revn. No. 637 of 1953 (unreported) | Confirmed that acquittal under section 247 Cr PC is final and bars retrial. | Supported the Court's reasoning against revival of the case. |
| Kanai Hizra v. Golap Hizra, AIR 1953 Cal 197 | Similar view to Patna High Court that acquittal under section 247 Cr PC is final. | Provided corroborative authority from another High Court. |
| B. Kotayya v. K. Venkayya, AIR 1918 Mad 212 | A solitary case expressing a different view regarding revival after acquittal. | The Court noted this but found it inconsistent with other Madras High Court decisions and other High Courts. |
| In re G. Peddaya, ILR 34 Mad 253; In re Sinmu Gounden, ILR 38 Mad 1028 : AIR 1914 Mad 628; Devarakonda Lakshminarasimham v. Nalluri Bapanna, AIR 1927 Mad 473 | Madras High Court decisions supporting finality of acquittal under section 247 Cr PC. | Used to show consistent view aligning with Patna and Calcutta High Courts. |
| Gajo Chaudhary v. Debi Chaudhary, AIR 1923 Pat 532 | Magistrate has no jurisdiction to review or revise a completed order in a criminal case. | Supported the conclusion that the Magistrate could not revive the case after acquittal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the effect of an acquittal under section 247 of the Cr PC and found that such an order is final and operates as a bar to any further trial for the same offence under section 403 of the Cr PC. The Court relied on multiple precedents from the Patna and Calcutta High Courts, as well as consistent decisions from the Madras High Court, to establish that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to revive the case once acquitted. The solitary contrary view from the Madras High Court was considered but found to be inconsistent with the prevailing consensus. Additionally, the Court noted that once a Magistrate has signed and completed an order, he cannot review or revise it, reinforcing the invalidity of the revival order. Consequently, the Magistrate’s order reviving the case was set aside and the fresh proceedings quashed.
Holding and Implications
Reference accepted.
The Court set aside the order dated 2nd April 1954 reviving the complaint and quashed the fresh proceedings against Rasik Tatma. The direct effect is that the accused cannot be retried for the same offence once acquitted under section 247 of the Cr PC. No new precedent was established; the decision affirms existing legal principles regarding finality of acquittal and Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
K. Dayal, J.:— This is a reference under section 438 of the Cr PC by the District Magistrate, Saharsa.
2. The material facts are these: One Bhagwat Tanti filed a complaint in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Madhipura, against Rasik Tatma and three others, alleging that they had forcibly uprooted wheat crop from his lands. The Sub-divisional Magistrate summoned accused Rasik and, thereafter, transferred the case to the file of the Honorary Magistrate, First Class, Madhipura. This trying Magistrate allowed bail to the accused and summoned prosecution witnesses for the next date. On the next date, that is, the 16th March, 1954, trying Magistrate found the complainant absent on call and, therefore, he acquitted the accused under section 247 of the Cr PC.
3. Subsequently the complainant appeared before the trying Magistrate and filed a petition for reviving the case. On the 2nd April, 1954, the learned trying Magistrate passed an order reviving the case. Accused Rasik then moved the District Magistrate for referring the matter to the High Court for setting aside the order of the learned trying Magistrate dated 2nd April, 1954 reviving the case. Upon this application, the learned District Magistrate has referred this case to this Court for quashing the proceeding against petitioner Rasik Tatma.
4. The only important question for decision in this case is as to whether the case could have been revived or restored after the accused had been acquitted under section 247 of the Cr PC.
5. In Ram Mahto v. Emperor, 2 Pat LT 170 : AIR 1921 Pat 311 (2)) (A), Kiran Barkar v. Emperor, 5 Pat LT 15 : (AIR 1924 Pat 140) (B) and Jaikaran Jha v. Dukhan Paswan, Ori, Revn. No. 637 of 1953, D/- 8-4-1954 (Pat) (C) (unreported), this Court has held that an order under section 247 of the Cr PC is a final order of acquittal which operates as a bar under section 403 of the Cr PC to the trial of the accused for the same offence. The principles of these cases are directly applicable to the facts of the present case. Similar is the view of the Calcutta High Court, see for Instance, Kanai Hizra v. Golap Hizra, AIR 1953 Cal 197 (D). Mr. A.K Roy, appearing against the reference, referred us to a solitary case of the Madras High Court, namely B. Kotayya v. K. Venkayya, AIR 1918 Mad 212 (E) where a different view has been expressed. But it appears that, previous to 1918 and, after 1918, the Madras High Court had taken the view as that been taken by the Calcutta and the Patna High Courts, see for instance, In re G. Peddaya, ILR 34 Mad 253 (P), In re Sinmu Gounden, ILR 38 Mad 1028 : (AIR 1914 Mad 628) (G), and (Devarakonda) Lakshminarasimham v. Nalluri Bapanna, AIR 1927 Mad 473 (H). Thus, on the authorities brought to our notice the concensus of opinion appears to be that an order of acquittal under Section 247 of the Cr PC operates as a bar under section 403 of the Code to the trial of the accused for the same offence.
6. Besides, it has been laid down in a number of cases that, in a criminal case the Magistrate, after once having signed and completed his order, has no jurisdiction to review or revise the same, see for instance, Gajo Chaudhary v. Debi Chaudhary, AIR 1923 Pat 532 (I).
7. It is, thus, manifestly clear that the learned trying Magistrate had no jurisdiction to revive the complaint case.
8. In the result, the reference is accepted and the order of the learned trying Magistrate dated 2nd April, 1954 is set aside and the fresh proceeding drawn up against Rasik Tatma is quashed.
9. B.P Jamuar, J.:— I agree.
D.H.Z
10. Reference accepted.
Alert