THE STATE OF PUNJAB versus S. RATTAN SINGH

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 16-12-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
Ramnarayan 
Mor and 
another 
v. 
State of 
Maharashtra 
Ayyangar J. 
1963 
December 16 
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
by reference to unproved, untested and possibly inad-
missible documents on which the prosecution proposes 
to rely, whether to such a case those considerations 
necessarily apply. If without evidence, properly so 
called, a Magistrate examines ·an accused, he would 
be converting himself into an investigating agency 
and there is therefore every possibility of the accused 
being prejudiced and that might be the very reason 
why the sub-section has been framed in a manner to 
avoid this result. The position is, of course, different 
under s. 251-A(2) where the examination is by virtue 
of the statute and so it stands in a class apart, and we 
are not concerned to consider whether an examination 
under that provision might prejudice the accused. 
We, therefore, hold that where there is no evi-
dence recorded under sub-s. (4) of s. 207-A, the Ma-
gistrate has no jurisdiction to examine an accused 
under s. 207-A(6) and consequently the Magistrate in 
the present case had no jurisdiction to direct the 
accused to appear before him for examination. 
We would accordingly allow the appeal and set 
aside the order of the Magistrate directing the accused 
to appear before him for being examined. 
ORDER 
Jn view of the Judgment of the majority, the 
appeal fails and is dismissed. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
S. RATTAN SINGH 
(P.B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. SUBBA RAO, 
K.N. 
WANCHOO, 
J:C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.) 
The Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act (Act IV of 2002 BK), 
ss. 4 and II-Scope of-Civil Court-Jurisdiction to decide if a 
person is defaulter. 
~.
/ ' 
' ! 
-
~ 
I 
Provincial Insolvency Act (5of1920), s. 4-Whether Insolvency 
. c..111·.
Court can go behind decree. 
...
y 
( 
·j -
• 
' --
-
5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1099 
Jyoti Parshad was indebted to the Bank of Patiala. As he 
1963 
could not pay the debt, he asked the Bank in 1952 to allow him 
to pay the same in instalments and the Bank agreed. Rattan Singh, 
The State of 
Respondent stood surety to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs and entered 
Pun 'ab 
into a contract of guarantee with the Bank to discharge the liability 
U 
of Jyoti Parshad to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs in case of default by 
v. 
Jyoti Parshad. A deed of guarantee was also executed. As S. Rattan Singh 
Jyoti Parshad did not pay, the Bank started proceedings against 
Rattan Singh under the Act. The Managing Director of the Bank 
dismissed the objections raised by Rattan Singh. The Board 
of Directors dismissed the appeal. The appellant filed a petition 
in the Court of the Insolvency Judge praying for adjudication of 
Rattan Singh Respondent as insolvent on account of his transfer 
of his houses and agricultural lands without consideration to his 
wife and two sons within 3 months of the petition with intent to 
defeat and delay his creditor Bank having full knowledge of his 
liability towards the State. The contention of the Respondent 
was that he did not stand surety and that the impugned tranfser 
of lands and houses was made on account of natural love and affec-
tion for his wife. The insolvency petition was dismissed by the 
Insolvency Judge on the ground that the Respondent had not 
executed a deed of guarantee. The appellant went in appeal to 
the District Judge but the appeal was dismissed. The revision 
was also dismissed by the High Court. The appellant came to 
this court after obtaining special leave. 
The contentions of the appellant before this court were that 
the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine matters which 
could be determined by the Head of the Department under the 
provisions of the Act, that the Head of the Department in the 
exercise of the powers conferred under s. 4 on him could not only 
determine the amount due from the defaulter but also could deter-
mine whether the alleged defaulter was really a defaulter or not 
and that in view of s. 11 of the Act, a civil court could not determine 
the question of the liability of the alleged defaulter to pay the 
debt demanded from him. The contentions of the Respondent 
were that the Head of the Department could only determine the 
amount of debt due from a person alleged to be a defaulter 
but could not determine whether that person was defaulter or 
not and even if the Head of the Department could determine 
the liability of the alleged defaulter to pay the debt, the jurisdic-
tion of th

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