LexPRAMATHA NATH TALUQDAR versus SAROJ RANJAN SARKAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT' REPORTS 297 restore the order of the District Judge, Vizagapa· tam, setting aside the order of the Board dated March 28, l!J4 7. Appeal allowed. PRAMATHA NATH TALUQDAR v. SAROJ RANJAN SARKAR (S. K. DAs, J. L. KAPUR, and M. HmAYA'fULLAH JJ.) Criminal .Comp taint-Scope ojenquiry-Secmid complaint on same facts but fresh evidence-When ca" be entertained-- Exceptional circumstances-Manifest error-Gode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), as. 200, 202, 203, 204-0rimi- nal Matter-Special Bench-Validity of Constitution-Calcutta High Court (Appellate) RukB-Sanction-Abetment by conspi- racy-Gode of Criminal Procedure, 1891 (Act 5 of 1898), s. J96A-lndian Penal Gode, 1860 (XLV of 1860), ss. 107, 109, 120A, 12CB. On March 17, 1954, Promode Ranjan a brother of N. R. Sarkar filed a complaint under s. 200 Code of Criminal Pro- cedure against Pramathanath and S. M. Basu alleging offences punishable under ss. 467, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Chief Presidency Magistrate in respect of a document appointing Pramathanath as the Managing Director of N. R. Sarkar & Co. and the minutes of the Board meeting resolving the same. It was alleged therein that me signatures of N. R. Sarkar on 11..- documents were forgeries. After considering the evidence of the Handwriting Expert the Magis- trate dismissed the complaint. Promode Ranjan preferred a revision petition to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision Petition. By an application dated January 6, 1956, when the revision petition was pen<;ling, attention of the High Court was. drawn to the fact that the minutes dated January 16, 1948, had been typed on· a letter bearing at the top in print "Telephc>ne City 6091" where as the City Exchange had not come into existence till December 1948. The Supreme Court granted special leave against the dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court but the appeal was withdrawn. On April 3, 1959, Saroj Ranjan, another brother of N.R.Sarkar, laid a complaint on the same facts and ail~tions Ifill The Poolrari Fakir Bad .. a.rlh;y of Bondillrpuram v. The Commissioner, Hindu. Reli1ious anti Charitable Endownunts Raghuhor Da;yal J. 1'6J Dicnnber 2 t "" Pr•oluN.ih Tollll/tlar •. s..; Raja .Satiar 298 SUPR.EKE COURT REPORTS [1962] SOPP. agaimt the appellants, in addition alleging the further fact about the City Exchange in support of the allegation that the minutes were forged dishonestly and fraudulently and wed as genuine. Neither in this complaint nor before the High Court had it been stutd as to when it came to be known that on the purported date of the minutes the City Exchange was not in existence. The Presidency Magistrate issued pcOCCM against the appellants. The appellants went up in reruion to the Hiirh Court. The matter was first heard by a Division Bench and was later referred to a larger Bench of three Judges which dimiissed the revision petition. In these appcab on special leave it .was contended by the appellants that the second complaint ought not to have been entertained, that the· constitution of the special Bench was illegal and that as the complaint alleged criminal conspiracy sanction under s. I 96A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required. Held, that the enquiry contemplated by ss. 200 to 204, Code of Criminal Procedure is for the purpose of enabling the Magistrate to find out if sufficient grounds exist for issuing prc»:ess. V adilal Pa~h<Jl v. Daltatraja .Dulaji CltandigaoN.ar, [i96i] 1 S. C.R. I, Guiab Khan v. Guiab Mohammad KltaA A.I.R. 1927 Lah. 30 and Ram (}opal Ga"pat R..W v. State of Bombay, ( 1958) S.C.R. 688 referred to. Per S. K. Das, ].-The law does not prohibit altogether the entertainment of a second complaint when a previ<>UB complaint on the •ame allegations has been dismissed under 1. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But a oecond complaint containing more or less the same allegations can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. It is not possible nor desirable that the exceptional circumstances must be stated with particularity or precision. Generally speaking, the exceptional circumstances may be classified under three categoric•: (1) manifest err6r in the earlier procreding, (2) resulting miJcarriage of justice, and C'l new facts which the complainant had no knowledge of or could not with reason• able diligence have brought forward in the pre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.