VADILAL PANCHAL versus DATTATRAYA DULAJI GHADIGAONKER AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1961] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-05-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
.J 
VADILAL PANCHAL 
I960 
v. 
May 6. 
DATTATRAYA DULAJI GHADIGAONKER 
AND ANOTHER. 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
. 
Criminal Procedure-Complaint-Magistrate referring com-
plaint to police for report-Plea of self-defence-Magistrale dismis-
sing complaint upholding such plea on the basis of police report-
Legality-Indian.Evidence Act, I872 (I of I872), s. I05-Code of 
Criminal Procedure, I898 (Act 5 of I898), ss. 200, 202, 203. 
On June 3, I956, riots broke out after a public meeting held 
in Bombay in connection with the re-organisation of the State of 
Bombay was dispersed on account of the disturbances created. 
therein. The car in which the appellant was travelling was 
stopped by the crowd and some of those who surrounded the car 
~ 
caught hold of him by his neck and hair and wanted to drag him 
out of the car. The appellant then opened fire with his revolver. 
The respondent's brother, S, who was hit on the chest by one of 
' 
.. 
the shots fired was removed to the hospital but died before medi-
\ 
cal assistance could be given. The police surgeon who made a 
post-mortem examination expressed the opinion that the shot 
must have been fired from a distance of 2 to 18 inches only. The 
Coroner's Jury returned a verdict that S died of the wound caus-
ed by a bullet fired by the appellant "under such circumstances 
as would render the firing to be in the exercise of the right of 
private defence and as such justified." 
The respondent filed a complaint in the court of the Presi-
--J 
dency Magistrate, Bombay, on the allegation that his brother 
died as a result of the firing resorted to by the appellant who 
} 
thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 302 of the 
1 
Indian Penal Code and prayed that process might be issued 
against him. The Magistrate referred the complaint to the police 
for enquiry and report under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure and after considering the report said: "From the state-
men ts recorded by the Police in this case and from the surround-
~ 
ing circumstances of the case, I have come to the definite conclu-
! 
sion that the report of the Police stating that the shot was fired 
' 
by the accused in self-defence is true ...... The statement of the 
police surgeon conclusively supports the conclusion ...... The eye 
,) 
witnesses brought by the complainant are not credible witnesses. 
.... 
It will be harassment to the accused and waste of public time if 
any process is issued in this case ". The Magistrate, accordingly, 
dismissed the complaint under s. 203 of the Code of Criminal 
• • 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961(1)] 
1960 
Procedure. The High Court, in revision, set aside the order of 
dismissal and directed the Magistrate to issue process against the 
V•dil•I Panchal appellant and deal with the case in accordance with law, on the 
v. 
grounds that this was not a case in which it was proper for the 
Dallatr•y• Dulaji Magistrate to dismiss the complaint under s. 203 of the Code of 
G/oadiga""A" 
Criminal Procedure, that proof of the plea of self-defence could 
b Another 
not be held to have been established from the mere report of the 
police, a.nd that there was nothing in s. 202 or s. 203 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure wbich abrogated the rule as to the pre-
sumption laid down ins. 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. 
Held, that under s. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
the judgment which the ~agistrate has to form must be based on 
the statements of the complainant and his witnesse~ and the 
result of the investigation or inquiry, and in arriving at bis hdg-
ment he is not fettered in any way except by judicial consi<!ern-
tions; provided that there are satisfactory and reliable materials 
on which he can base his judgment as to whether there is suffici-
ent ground for proceeding on the complaint or not, if he has not 
misdirected himself as to the scope of an enquiry under s. 202 
and has applied his mind judicially to the materials before 
him, it would be erroneous in law to hold that a plea based on 
an exception can never be accepted by him in arriving at his 
judgment. 
Held, further, that on the facts of the present case, the 
order of the Magistrate was correct and that the judgment of the 
High Court setting aside that order on an erroneous view of the 
scope of s. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be set 
aside. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDIOTION: 
Crimi1111;l 
Appeal No. 117 of 1958. 
App
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.