- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T. Ganguly, Dy. Superintendent And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
On 8 March 1966 the appellant lodged a complaint under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the Block Development Officer, the Officer-in-Charge of the local police station, and Deputy Superintendent of Police T. Ganguly committed dacoity while searching his house. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for want of sanction because the accused were government servants.
The Sessions Judge made a reference against that dismissal, and a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and remitted the matter. Magistrate S.K. Ganguly thereafter took cognizance on 27 March 1967, held a judicial enquiry, and on 22 November 1967 reported that a prima facie case existed. Acting on that report, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Sarkar issued processes against all three accused on 6 December 1967.
One accused petitioned the High Court to quash the process. The High Court held that because Magistrate Ganguly alone had taken cognizance, SDM Sarkar lacked authority to issue process under Section 204 CrPC, and it therefore quashed the processes. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sarkar, who had not taken cognizance of the offence, could lawfully issue process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether the High Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A CrPC, was entitled to examine the reliability of the evidence and conclude that no prima facie case existed.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into the sufficiency and reliability of evidence; it ought not to have assessed whether a prima facie case was made out while acting under Section 561-A CrPC.
Respondents' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that Magistrate Ganguly had alone taken cognizance. Under Section 204 CrPC, the power to issue process is vested in the Magistrate who takes cognizance. A separate mechanism exists under Sections 191, 192 and 202 CrPC: a Magistrate who has taken cognizance may transfer the case to a subordinate Magistrate, who may then, after complying with Section 202, issue process. Issuance of process is a judicial function that must follow examination of the complainant.
In the present case there was no order transferring the matter from Magistrate Ganguly to SDM Sarkar. Because the statutory conditions enabling a different Magistrate to issue process were absent, SDM Sarkar lacked jurisdiction. The High Court therefore correctly quashed the processes.
Addressing the appellant’s objection to the High Court’s evaluation of evidence, the Supreme Court held that Section 561-A empowers the High Court to determine whether “any legal evidence” exists. Describing the evidence as “tainted” amounted to finding that there was “no case to go to the jury,” a conclusion legitimately open to the High Court under its inherent powers.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order quashing the criminal processes issued against the accused, including T. Ganguly.
Implications: The ruling reiterates that only (a) the Magistrate who has taken cognizance under Section 204 CrPC or (b) a Magistrate to whom the case is formally transferred under Section 192 CrPC and acting in accordance with Section 202 can issue process. It underscores the need for a valid transfer order and observance of procedural safeguards before compelling the attendance of an accused. The decision affects the parties alone and does not establish new precedent beyond clarifying the statutory framework.
A.N Ray, J.— This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment, dated March 28, 1968, of the High Court at Calcutta quashing the processes issued against the three accused persons.
2. The appellant on March 8, 1966, filed a petition of complaint against the Block Development Officer, Purulia, the officer in charge of the local police station and T. Ganguly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Purulia under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that during search of the appellant's house they committed dacoity in the house. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the complaint was incompetent without sanction as the accused were government servants.
3. The complainant thereafter moved the Sessions Judge, Purulia against the order of dismissal. A reference was made to the Calcutta High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court accepted the reference, set aside the order of the Magistrate and sent the case back for proceeding in accordance with law.
4. On March 27, 1967, the Magistrate Shri S.K Ganguly took cognizance of the case and fixed a date for holding judicial enquiry. The Magistrate on November 22, 1967, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been made out against the three accused and submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Purulia. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Purulia on receipt of the report of the Judicial enquiry passed an order on December 6, 1967, directing the issue of process against all the three accused. This order forms the subject-matter of the appeal.
5. One of the accused thereafter moved the High Court at Calcutta for quashing the process. The High Court at Calcutta said that cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate, Shri S.K Ganguly but process was issued by the Magistrate Shri Sarkar and held that Shri Sarkar not having taken cognizance of the offence had no right to issue process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, therefore, quashed the process and observed that the learned Magistrate who had taken cognizance of the offence if he was so advised would be at liberty to issue processes against the other two accused persons.
6. The question for consideration is whether Shri Sarkar could have issued process in the present case. Shri Ganguly was the Magistrate who took cognizance. Shri Sarkar was not the Magistrate who took cognizance. Therefore under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate who took cognizance of the case could issue process.
7. Sections 191 and 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplate transfer of cases by a Magistrate, who has taken cognizance of an offence. Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks of transfer of a case or commitment to the Court of Sessions on the application of the accused. Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks of transfer of a case by a Magistrate who has taken cognizance to any Magistrate subordinate to him for inquiry or trial.
8. In these cases where either the Magistrate has taken cognizance and is in seisin of the case or where a case is transferred by a Magistrate who has taken cognizance to another Magistrate subordinate to him the complainant is required to be examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There are certain exceptions with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. The relevant section which confers power on the Magistrate to whom the case has been transferred to issue process is Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The language of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the Magistrate may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against. Therefore, the power of the Magistrate to issue process under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not limited by the terms of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue process.
9. Therefore, the two courses are: first, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate taking cognizance to issue process or secondly under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a Magistrate to whom a case has been transferred to issue process.
10. In the present case there was no order of transfer of the case by Sri Ganguly to Shri Sarkar. The issue of process is a matter for judicial determination. Before issuing a process the Magistrate has to examine the complainant. That is why the issue of process is by the Magistrate who has taken cognizance or the Magistrate to whom the case has been transferred. The High Court therefore correctly quashed the issue of process.
11. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the High Court should not have gone to the question as to whether a prima facie case was established or not. The High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure can go into the question as to whether there is any legal evidence. When the High Court said that the evidence in the present case came from tainted sources and was not reliable the High Court meant what can be described as “no case to go to the jury”.
12. The High Court correctly quashed the process against T. Ganguly. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
Alert