CHANDRA DEO SINGH versus PROKASH CHANDRA BOSE & ANR.

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 639 · Decided: 22-01-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT RgPORTS 
639 
the qualifications for 
holding the office of the 
Goswami but we reverse its decision in so far as it 
relates to the latter part of s. 30 (2) (a) which deals 
with the allowances payable to the Goswami. 
In 
the circumstances of this case, we direct that parties 
should bear their own costs throughout. 
·Appeal dismissed. 
CHANDRA DEO SINGH 
v. 
PROKASH CHANDRA BOSE & ANR. 
(S.J. IMAM, K. SuBBA RAo, N. RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
and J. R. M UDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Criminal Law-Proceeding under •· 202 Criminal Pro<»-
dure Oode-Revision.pelitim by rllllpondent No. 1 and the other 
persons-IVhelher rllllpondent No. 1 has locus Btandi to conteRt 
criminal ca-Be before i .. ue of process-Procedural defect-Powers 
of M"ilistrate in committal proceedings and in con•idering 
evidence-Recording 
of reasons-Gode 
of Criminal Proce· 
dure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), sa. 202, 203. 
A first 
information report was filed stating that the 
respondent No. I and some others committed murder. There-
after a person claiming t.; be a relative of the dccea•ed filed a 
complaint alleging that the first information report was false 
and that certain persons other than those stated in the first 
information report had committed the murder. It was prayed 
that process be issued against these persons. 
The Sub-Divi· 
sional Ma~istrate before whom thii complaint was filed directed 
the First Class Magistrate to inquire into the allegation and to 
make a report. Subsequently the nephew of the deceased filed 
a complaint alleging that respondent No. 1 had committed the 
murder. 
The Sub-Division-11 Magistrate directed the 
First 
Class Magistrate to enquire into this complaint also and to 
report. 
During the enquiry aparl from the witness produced 
1963 
Tilkayal 
";hri Govindlt1lji 
Maharaj 
v. 
.51011 of Rajaslhan 
Gqjmdr11adkar, J. 
1963 
January, 22. 
640 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964]VOL. 
196J 
hy the complainant, respondent No. 1 was allowed to be repre· 
Ototulro Dto 5'ingA 
sentcd by a counsel and two persons who had been named in 
v. 
the first inform,tion report alon~ with respondent No. 1 were 
Pro/UV~ Cla1mrlro Bost .examined as court witnesses. 
The First Class Magistrate after 
conducting inquiry under s. 203 Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, 
made a report stating that "pri""' Jacie case had been made 
out ag~inst the personJ mentirmed in the first complaint. 
He 
made another report on the second complaint stating that no 
pima Jncie case had been made against respondent No. I. 
Sub-Divisional Magi<trate direct.d the initiation of committal 
proceedings ag.iinst the pe•som mentioned in the first complaint. 
On a revision application filed hy the complainant in the second 
complaint 
the SeSJions Jurlge directed the Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate to conrluct further inquiry against respondent No. I 
who took the matter in revision to the High Court. The th= 
persons a~inst whom commhtal proceedings were ordered also 
filed revision application before the High Court. 
Both the 
petitions were hearrl together. 
The revision applications by 
respondent No. I and one of the three othors were allowed. 
Th• pre!ICnt app•al is under a certificate granted under Art. Ill 
(I) (c) of the Constitution of India. 
The mdn contentions of the appellant before this Court 
w<re (!\ the respondent No. I had no locu• •l~lldi to appear 
and contest a criminal ca<c before the imie of process (2) the 
te't applied by the High Court for determining the question of 
is!iue of process wa' erroneous (3) the Magistrate making an 
inquiry under s. 202 Criminal Procedure Code had no juris. 
diction to wei~h the evidence as if it were a trial (4) the Sub. 
Divisi1,nal M;,gic;tr;.te ought to have given his reasons under 
s. 203 Criminal Procedure Code for dismi<Sing the complaint. 
Hrld, that an accused person d0"5 not come into the 
pir.turo at all till proc<'s i' iS<ued. 
Even thou~h he m'y be 
allowed to be represented by counsel he h., no right to take 
part in the proceedings nor has the Magistrate jurisdiction to 
permit him to do so. 
"The MJgistratt: cannot put questions at 
the instance of a person named as accused but ~gainst \\'horn no 
process has been is1ued nor can he examine any witnC"Sst"s at the 
instance of that person. 
The inquiry m1de by the Magistrate 
was therefore vitiated. 
VtJdilol Pancho/ v. D<1ttotry~ Duhji Gharlfr;.•onkar, [1961] 
I S C. R. I, rcforrod to. 
For derrnnining the q•1estion whether process is to be 
issued or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.