LexAJAIB SINGH versus JOGINDER SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r A B c D AJAIB SINGH v. JOGINDER SINGH April 30, 1968 [S. M. S!KRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.J Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898) ss. 195 (l)(b) 479 A(6) and 559-Complainr under ss. 193, 195, 211 a11d 1208 !PC-Filed by successor-i11-office of Magistrate-Validity-s. 559, scope of. India11 Pe11al Code (45 of 1860) ss. 193, 195, 211 and 1208--Com- p/aint-Filed by successor-in-office of Magistrate-Validity. Police Act (5 of 1861) s. 42-Applicahility. A magistrate acquitted Bhagwant Rai of the charge under ss. 325/34 I.P.C. and observed that he had been falsely implicaited. The magistrate's successor-in--0ffice the respondent filed a complaint under ss. 193, 195, 211 and 120B J.P.C., against the appellants. The appellants con- tendc.d that (i) prosecution for offences under ss. 193 and 195 I.P.C., was barred under s. 479A(6) Cr. P.C.; (ii) according to s. 195(1)(b) Cr. P.C., only the Magistrate before whom <he original proceedings were taken could file the complaint in respect of ss. 193, 195 and 211 IPC; (iii) s. 42 of the Police Act barred the prosecution as it was commenced after the period prescribed; and (iv) the complaint only disclosed two offences under ss. 193 and 195 l.P.C. and no D•ther. HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. E (i) In view of the ruling of this ·Court jn Shabir Husain Bholu v. F State of Maha1·qshrra and Bahan Sin~h v. Jagdish Singh, the prosecution for offences under"· 19'3 and 195 TPC was barred under s. 479A(6) Cr. P.C. [148 Bl (ii) The complaint was properlv filed bv the succcss·vr-in-office of the Magistrate. Section 559 Cr. P.C. en.ables a successor-in-0ffice of a \ Iagistrate 1to file a complaint. This section applies to all l\1agistrates, and there is no reason to limit it to 1\.iagistrates whose courts are penna- nent. Sub-s. (2) has not the effect of limiting s. 559(1). Section 559(2) applies when there is a doubt as to who the successor is, and that doubt can be resolved in thC n1anner laid down in sub-s.(2). The suh~ section does not 1ne'an that unti! a successor is determined un.der sub-s. (2) there is no successor for the purpose of sub-s. (1). [148 F-H: 149 Al G Behram v. Emperor, 37 Cr. L.J. 776--Lah. 108; Bara Bapen Manild v. Gopi Manjhi, A.LR. 1927 Pat. 327. (Tn re: Subran1a11ian Chettiar. A.LR. 1957 Mad. 442. followed. (iii) Section 42 of the police Act does not apply to prosecutions under the Indian Penal Code or other Acts. [l 49 CJ Mulad Ahmad v. Sta,te of UP., [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 38. 44-45 followed. I! (iv) As the con1plaint on the face of it mentioned ss. 193, 195, 211 and 120B. so there was no force, in the contention that rtbe complaint onlv disclosed t\VO offences under ss. 193 and 195 I.P.C. and no other f149 F] 14G Sl.'PRnlE COl'RT REPORTS f 1969] I S.C.R. CRIML:<AL APPELLATE J1.'R1s1>1c:r10:-1 : Criminal Appeal !\'o. A 157ofl965. . Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated l'_cbruary I, 1965 o.f the Punjab High Court in Criminal Misc. :\o. 8 of 1964 in Cr. Revision N0. 1375 of 1963. Nishat Singh Grewal, R11vi11dra Ilana and O. P. Rana, for the B .appellants. R. N. Sachthn" for the respondent No. 2. The J ud~mcnt of the Court was delivered by Sikri, .I. This appeal by special ka\c i, directed "gainst the judgment ol the High Court of Punjab dismissing Criminal Mis- cellaneous Petition :'>lo. 8 of 1964. This petition arose out of the following facts, Bhagwant Rai and Chhota Ram were tried under s. 325, J.P.C., read with s. 34, l.P.C., in the Court of Shri Harish Chander Gaur, Magistrate !st Class, J>auala. Ajaib Singh, Sub Inspector, one of the appellants before us, had investi- gated the case. The \lagistrate, by his order dated April 5. l 957, acquitted both the accused and, inter alia, observed that llhagwant Rai had been falsely implica:cd in the case as he '"" not even present on the day of the occurrence at Patiala. On the application of Bhagwant Rai, Shri Joginder Singh 'Karam- garhia', Magistrate !st Cla'5, Patiala, who succeeded Shri Harish Chander Gaur, filed a complaint under ss. 193, 195, 211 and 1208, l.P.C., on Octoher 31. 1958, against six persons including the appellants, Ajaib Singh and Malkiat Singh. Shri 0. P. Gaur. Magistrate First Class, by his order dated June l, 1959, dis- charged the accused, holding that the complaint was not compe- tent as it was barred by sub-s. (6) of s. 479A, Cr. P.C., because the complaint
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.