PRAMATHA NATH MUKHERJEE versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 245 · Decided: 11-03-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
24:5 
beside the point. It was wholly immaterial whether 
profits were made or losses were incurred in the year, 
if the employers continued to retain the labour force 
so as to be available for the days on which the Mills 
worked. 
In our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal after giving 
a finding that a claim for compensation equal to half 
the wages and dearness allowances was just and pro-
per, erred in holding that it was not admissible because 
of the decision of this Court in the Muir Mills case (1). 
That case had no application to the facts here. 
The 
Appellate Tribunal also erred in declining to grant 
compensation on the ground that since bonus was 
granted the claim for compensation could not be 
entertained. The case of badli workers does not appear. 
to have been separately raised, and we see no reason 
not to award them compensation; but payment of 
such compensation will be subject to the same condi-
tion, as was impose(! by the Industrial Court. 
In the result, the appeal will be allowed, the order 
of the Appellate Tribunal set aside and the order of 
the Industrial Court restored. The respondents shall 
bear the costs here and in the Tribunals below. 
Appeal allowed. 
PRAMATHA NATH MUKHERJEE 
v .
. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(K. c. DAS GUPTAandJ. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Accu.sed discharged of offence triable as warrant 
case-If can be tried for any other triable as summons case on facts 
aisdosed in the Police Report-Cognizance by Magistrate-Code of 
Criminal Procedure (V of I898), ss. 25IA(2), I90(I)(b). 
A Criminal case was instituted in the c,ourt of a Magistrate 
at Calcutta against the appellant under s. 332 of the Indian 
Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to the Bailiff.of Calcutta 
Corporation and another. After hearing both sides the Magis-
trate was of the opinion that the charge under s. 332 could not 
be sustained but as there was evidence to establish a prima f acie 
case under s. 323 of the Indian Penal Code, he charged the appel-
lant under that section. The appellant pleaded not guilty and 
(I) [I955) I S,C.R. 99r. 
32 
Rashtriya Mill 
Mazdoor Sangh 
v. 
A po/lo Mills Ltd. 
Hidayatullah ]. 
Mtirth II. 
z960 
Pf'amat ha Nath 
Mukherjf!e 
v. 
State of JV est 
Bengal 
Das Gupta. ]. 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960) 
·claimed to be tried and submitted that in view of the prov1s10ns 
of s. 25rA(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, he should have been 
acquitted and the trial for the offence under s. 323, Indian Penal 
Code, could not be proceeded with. The Magistrate rejected the 
contention and convicted the appellant. 
On the question \Vhether a magistrate after making an order 
of discharge under s. 25rA(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in 
respect of a charge of an offence triable as a \varrant case can. 
still proceed to try the accused for another offence, which would 
be made out from the police report: 
Held, that an order of discharge made by the Magistrate in 
exercise of the powers under sub-s. (2) of s. 25rA, does not mean 
the discharge of the accused in respect of all the offences, which 
the facts mentioned in the police report would make out. The 
order of discharge being only in respect of the offences triable 
under Chapter XXI does not affect in any way the position 
that charges of offences triable under Chapter XX also are con-
tained in the police report. In the instant case even after the 
order of discharge was made in respect of the offence under 
s. 332 of the Indian Penal Code, the minor offence under s. 323 
of which the Magistrate had also taken cognizance remained for 
trial as there was no indication to the contrary. That being an 
offence triable under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal proce-
dure the Magistrate rightly followed the procedure under Chap-
ter XX. 
When a Magistrate takes cognizance under s. r9o(r)(b) of the 
Criminal Procedure Code, he takes cognizance of all offences, 
constituted by the facts reported by the Police Officer and not of 
some only out of those offences. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 116 of 1958. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated Feb-
ruary 28, 1957, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal 
Revision No. 1158of1956, arising out of the judgment 
and order dated June 26, 1956, of the Additional Chief 
Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, in G. R. Case No. 284 
of 1956. 
K. R. Chaudhury, for the appellant. 
B. Sen, P. K. Ghose for P. K. Bose, for the respon-

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