LexCRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
290 A B c D E F G H CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. March 24, 1971 [C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J Practice-High Court-Suo Motu lnterference with orders of low!!r courts under Crilninal Procedure Code-Propriety. Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 204(3), 248 and ~53(2) -Powers of Magistrate under. A complaint was filed against the first appellant and others- -office bearers of the first appellant-under ss. 337 and 338, 1.P.C., read with s. 114, that they were rash and negligent in the matter of making seating arrangements etc., for spectators of a cricket match, with the result that the spectators became unruly and the police resorted to lathi charge and the bursting of tear gas shells, causing injuries to several persons. The Chief Presidency Magistrate examined the complainant and issued sum- mons to the accused. Some of the office bearers challenged the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate in a criminal. revision before the High Court and the High Court held: (a,l that the counsel appearing for the complainant conceded that no offence was made out under ss. 337 and 338 read with s. 114 l.P.C., (b) that in fact, the statements in the com- plaint do not make out the offences under ss. 337 and 338, and (cl that they make out only an offence under s. 336, l.P.C. and therefore the prosecution will have to be given a chance to establish that offence against the accused. When the Chief Presidency Magistrate started to deal fur- ther with the matter, the complainant filed an application for leave to with~ draw the complaint against 8 accused and the Magistrate discharged those accused under s. 253(2), Cr. P. C. The complainant filed another application some time later seeking permission to withdraw the complaint against the rest of the accused on the ground that • he tiled the complaint only to voice the grievances of bana fide spectators and since the matter was being inquired into by an Inquiry Commission to find out the persons respo!l:sibJe. he did not intend to proceed with his complaint. The complaint as against some of the accused was dismissed under s. 204(3 ). Cr. P. C.. on the ground that the complainant had not deposited the necessary charges for issue of summons, and as regards others, the Chief Presidency Magistrate held that he could not allow the withdrawal of the complaint as the pro· ceedings under s. 338 1.P.C., were warrant proceedings. He however pass- ed an order discharging all the remaining accused under s. 253(2), Cr. P. C., because he held that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding fur· ther with the complaint as the complainant was absent and no longer serious. Thereafter, a Division Bench of the High Court issued suo motu notice to the complainant and all the accused, to show cause why the order dis· charging the accused should not be set aside; and, after hearing the parties the Court set aside the orders of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the grounds that: (a) The discharge of some of the accused under s. 204(31 on the ground that the complainant had not paid the process fee for issue of summons was not proper, since in the relevant rules framed by the High CltlCKET A5SCN. v. w. BENGAL (Vaidialingam,J.) 201 Court there was no provision for such payment; and (b) the or~er .dis- A charging the remaining accused under s. 253(2), Cr. P. C. was not 1ustlfied in a warrant case. On the question whether the order of the Hiah Court was justified. HELD: In a proper case the High Court can take action suo mvtu aaainst lhe orders passed by the subordinate courts without being mo,-ed by any party; but the interference with the orders of the Chief Presidency B Magistrate by the High Court in the present case was not justified in the circumstances of the case. [2080] (I) After the concession of the counsel for the complainant and the .categorical finding of the High Court that no offence under ss. 337 and 338 l.P.C., was made out and that investigation was to be made only in respect of ao offence under s. 336 I.P.C., the Magistrate had to proceed with the trial only for the offence under s. 336 l.P.C. [206H ; 207 A] C (2) Assuming that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had still to pro- ·Ceed with the trial for offences under ss. 337 and 338 J.P.C .• and that the ·discharge under s. 204(3) Cr. P. C., was not justified. the Magistrate has :got ample jurisdiction to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.