BIPAT GOPE versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 01-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
~H..,,...., 
S«retttrJ, S.U. 
/"""' Jli/1...-,' 
il•10ri4Ji011 
... 
'l'A1 S«:r•""'· 
~'"" Dislri&t 
7 ,.,;i, IF"'"'' 
um. 
lllfl 
Fdnoar;J I, 
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP. 
' 
that the normal lifo of the printing machinery is 
20 years, a divisor will have to be adopted and by 
the adoption of the proper divisor it would follow 
that there is no available surplus for the relavant 
year. That is why the award passed by tho Tribu-
nal directing the appellant to distribute Ra. 1.25 
lakhs byway of bonus amongst its employees for the 
year I !156-57 has to be set aside. The appeal is 
accordingly allowed; but there would be no order as 
to costs. 
BIPAT GOPE 
v. 
STATE 0.1!' BIHAR 
(.M. Hm..i.YA.TULLAH and J.C. S.ILUI, JJ.) 
Criminal Prowlure-CommiUmml proettding-Ortlu of 
di4cltatr;e l>y M agi4trate, First Ola&, after trying tlae wlwk caae 
-Procedure under s. 207A(6), Criminal Procedure Code 
Jol/Dwt4-l/ in ezcuo of jurisdktio-Code of CrimiMl P..-. 
dure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), s, 207..4(6). 
In procccdinl!.' under s. 207A(6) of the Code of Criminal 
Proccdwe the Magistrate discharged the accused after record-
ing the evidenc~ in the case. The High Court on rev.illon set 
aside the order and directed the Magfatrate to commit the 
accused to stand trial before the court of scssbn. The Magia-
trate examined witnesses, held spot inspection. 
He did not 
stop to find out if there was evidence which, if believed, would 
establish, at least, a prima facie case, but went on further to 
disbelieve that evidence, by an elaborate and paimtaldng 
process of examination, in aid of which he brought to bear his 
own appraisal of inconsistencies, improbabilities etc. In •hort, 
he tried the whole case from one and to the other and esta-
blished his point in a fairly elaborate order. 
Held, that the jumdiction conferred by sub-s. (6) of 
s. 207 A, does not entitle the Magistrate to try the case on his 
own, and forestall the drcision of the court of session. 
The 
order of discharge passed by him in the present case, therefore, 
wu in cxccas of jurladic:tion, and muat he set aside. 
, 
I 
) 
2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
949 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JumsmcTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 153 of 1960. 
Appeal by special le!lve from the judgment 
and order dated July 28, 1960, of the Patna High 
Court in Criminal Revision No. 1243 of 1959. 
Sarjoo Prasad, B.K. Banerje,e, P.K. Ohatterje,e, 
and A.K. Nag, for the appellants. 
S.P. Varma, for the respondent. 
1962. February 1.-The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
II/di 
B;plll 00[>1 
v. 
S:ate of Bilrar 
H!DAYATULLAH, J.-This is an appeal by 
Hidqyaluifoh J, 
special leave against an order of the High Court 
of Patna, by which an order passed by the Magis-
trate, First Class, discharging the appellants under 
s. 207A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was 
set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to 
commit the appellants to the Court of Session to 
stand their trial under ss. 307 /34 and 148 of the 
Indian Penal Code. The only question that is 
argued is whether the High Court was justified in 
setting aside the order of the Magistrate, which, it 
is cla.imed was passed in the proper exercise of the 
jurisdiction conferred by s. 207A(6) of the Code. 
The facts of the case, in ~rief, are as follows: 
011 March 26, 1959, at about 10-15 p.m. one 
Rajbahadur Rai alias Chhote Rai, was alleged to 
have been assaulted by the appellants at a place 
where Chhote Rai WllB sitting, at the pan shop of 
one Raghunath Prasad. The appellants are said 
to have arrived there in a private car and a 
tandem, and after assaulting Chhote Rai, to have 
gone away in these two vehicles. After investiga-
tion, the ~ppellants were prosecuted under ss. 307 i· 
34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, with the 
result already mentioned. 
Before the order of discharge was made, the 
Magistrate heard the· evidence of nine witnesses 
!NI 
/Jij>ol llep1 
•• 
Stw•JBV.. 
HiioyobJ/o~ J, 
950 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. 
including Chhote Rai and Ragbunath, who had 
given the first information report. Tho witn!'sses 
also includtod two other alleged eye-witne>:oes, 
Bhushan ::iingh (P.W. 2), aud ::-heonandim Yadcv 
(P.W. 6). 
The Magistrate, aft.tr nicording the 
evidence and holding a spot inspection and hearing 
the parties, discharged the appellants, as he "a;; 
of opinion (in his own words)-
· 
"in view of the aforesaid di8ere pant, 
unreliable and incredible and highly int<·rest-
ed prosecution 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.