DR. S.S. KHANNA versus CHIEF SECRETARY, PATNA & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 12-04-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DR. S.S. KHANNA 
v. 
CHIEF SECRETARY, PATNA & OTHERS 
April 12, 1983 
(E.S. VENKATARAM!AH AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act JI of 1974) Sections 202, 300 and 
319-Scope and Nature of-Whether a persOn against whom a complaint is filed 
along with some other perSon and who after an enquiry under Section 202 of the 
Code is not proceeded against by the Court can be summ1ned at a later stage 
under Section 319 of the Code to stand trial -for the same or connected offence or 
offences along with the other Persons against whom proocess had be~n issued 
earlier by the C:Jurt--Principles of Issue estoppel an.I Autre [vis, applicability of-
.Article 20 (2) of the ConStilution of India, 1950. 
The General Secretary of the Employees Association of the National 
I1istitute· of Foundry and Forge Technology, Ranchi filed a complaint before 
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi to take action _against Banktesh Prasad. 
the 
S~curity Officer of the Institute ar.d the Appellant, the Director of the 
Institute, alleging that both had committed certain acts amounting to offences 
punishable the former under Sections. 323 and 504 IPC and the latter under 
Sections 323 and 506 IPC. After .recording the statement of the complainant 
and the evidence of six 'witnesses under s. 202 Cr. Procedure Code 1973, the 
Chief Judicial Magistrate felt that there was no prima facie case made out 
for proceeding against the· appellant and accordingly he declined to issue 
process against him. A revision petition filed by the complainant against that 
order was dismi~sed by the Judicial Commissioner, l\.anchi. However, in the· 
course LOf further proceedings against Banktesh Prasad, the First ClassJ udicial 
Magistrate, Ranchi to whose Court the proceedings were transferred allowed 
an application under section 319 filed by the complainant to the effect that 
since it was in the .further evidence of the witnesses that the appellant had 
also taken out his revolver and threatened to shoot and kill the complainants' 
party, he should be summoned to 5tand trial along with Banktesh Prasad. 
The appellant questioned the order of the ~Aagistrate before the Patna High 
Court at Ranchi in a Revision Petition. That Petition was dismissed. 
Hence the appeal by Special Leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I : I Having regard to the nature of the proceedings under 
Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it may be difficult to hold that 
there is a legal bar based on the principle of issue estoppel to proceed under 
Section 319 against a p~rso:i. co.n;>lain~d ag1ios t on the same material, if the 
Court bas dismissed a complaint under Section 203. But it is not necessary 
s.s. KHANNA v. CHIEF SECRETARY (Vankataramiah, J.) 
72~ 
to express any final opinion on that qustion since, in the.instant case, it is seen 
that the magistrate decided to take action under section 319 of the Code on the 
A 
basis of fresh evidence which was brought on record- in the course of proceed-
ings that took place after the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the 
Code was over and }n the course of the trial against Banktesh Prasad. 
(730 G-H, 731 A-BJ 
1: 2 Even wt.en an order of the magistrate declining to hsue process 
under Section 202 is confirmed by a higher court, the jurisdiction of the 
B: 
magi.strtlte under Section 319 remaios unaffected, if other conditions are 
satisfied.[731-BJ 
I : 3 The autre-fois principle adumbrated in Section 300 of the Code 
.cannot. however, apply to this case. In the instant case, the magistrate had 
good reason to summon the appellant under Secti.on 319 of the Code, as it 
C 
appears from the evidence led at the trial that there was a strong case made 
out against the ai;pellant for joining him in the criminal case as an accused • 
. 731 B, 732 D] 
. 
Pramathanath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (1962] Suppl. 2 SCR 297; 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohatgi and ors. (1983] J. S.C.C, 
I followed. 
2 : l The object of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code is the 
ascertainment of the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation 
cal1ing for the issue of process to the person complained against or whether 
D 
it is a baseless one on.which no action need be taken. Section ·202 does not 
require any adjudication to be made about the guilt or otherwise of the p~rson 
E 
against whom the complaint is preferred. [728 H, 729 A-BJ 
2 : 2 An inquiry under 

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