LexNARAYANDAS BHAGWANDAS MADHAVDAS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. 93 SUPREME COURT REPORTS NARAYANDAS BHAGWANDAS :MADHAVDAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (JAFAR IMAM and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) Criminal TriaJ,-Cognizance of a11 offence, when taken-lssui'!g of search warrant and warrant of arr~st, if amount to taking cogniz- ance-Attempt-ing to tahe rnrrency notes out of India-Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, r947 (VII of r947), ss. r9(3) and 23(3). Code of Criminal, Procedure, r898 (V of r898), ss. r53, r55, 200-203 and 204. On September 7, 1952, the appellant went to Dum Dum Aerodrome to board a plane for Hong Kong. On his search by the customs authorities a sum of Rs. 25,000 was recovered from him which he had not declared in his declaration form and for which he had no permit from the Reserve Bank of India for taking out of India. On September II, 1952, the Reserve Bank authorised Inspector Mitra to move the Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under s. 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, for permission to proceed against the appellant. On September 16, 1952, Mitra applied to the Magistrate for a search warrant and for a warrant of arrest and both warrants were issued. The appellant was arrested and released on bail with a direction to appear before the Magistrate on September 19. On September 19, the Magistrate granted bail to the appellant but refused him exemption from personal attendance before the Court and granted time· till November 19, 1952, for completing the investigation. This time was extended upto January 2, 1953 and then upto February 2, 1953. In the meantime on Jantiary 27, 1953, Mitra was authorised under I>· 23(3)(b) of the Act to file a complaint against the app'ellant. The complaint was filed on February 2, 1953, before the Additional District Magistrate who transferred the case to a Magistrate I Class for trial. On the same day the Magistrate I Class recorded the presence of the appel- lant, allowed his application for reduction of security and fixed March 26, and 27, 1953· for evidence. Upon conclusion of the triai the Magistrate acquitted the appellant but on appeal the Calcutta High Court convicted him. The agpellant contended that the entire trial was without jurisdiction as the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence on September 16, 1952, without there being a complaint in writing by a person autho- rised as required by s. 23(3) of the Act. Held, that cognizance of. the offence was taken by the Additional District Magistrate on February 2, 1953, after the complaint had been filed and the trial was valid. As to when cognizance is taken of an offence will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere issuing of a search warrant or warrant of arrest for the purposes of investigation did not, by I959 May7. I959 l\'arayand,1s Bliagwandrt.'i Jl/adluH'das. v. TJie State of JVest lJ1J1;gal /1nrim ]. .94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1 )] themselves, amount to taking of cognizance. Cognizance was taken when a Magistrate applied his mind for the purpose of proceeding under s. 200 and subsequent sections of Ch. X\~I of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under s. 204 of Ch. XVII of the Code. In the present case cognizance was taken 'vhen on February 2, 1953, the Additional District Magistrate applied his mind to the case \vith a vie\\' to issuing a process and sent the case for trial to another magistrate. Suj>eri11h'1ultn! a11d I?enictnbrancer of J_egal A.flairs, 11·rest Bengal \'. Abani Knmar llancrji, A.LR. (1950) Cal. 437 and R. R. Cliari \'. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [r95r} S.C.R. 312, applied. The facts found clearly cstablishe<l that tho appellant atte1npted to take out of India the currency notes in question, and such attc1npt \Vas also an offence. l'he I-ligh Court had rightly rejected his explanation that he had applied tQ the l~eserve J--\llnk for a pennit to take the currency notes out of India and that as the permit had not been received he hacl fiandL~d o\·er the nott~s to the customs authorities for safe custocly. Cm:vl!XAL APPELLATE .fuRISDTCTJON: Criminal Appeal Xo. 12 of 19:37. Appeal from the judgment antl ortler dated Septem- ber ;), l!J56, of the Calcutta High Court. in Govern- ment Appeal Xo. 7of1954, arising out of the judgment and order dated April 3, 1954, of the Court of 1st Class ~lagistrate :tt Aliporn. 18hwar Lol C. Dalal and J. N. Shroff, for the app<,lJnnt. Ji . .J. fhn,.iyar and R. 11. Dhebar, for the res
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.