AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govinda Menon, J.—When this revision petition came on for hearing on a previous occasion, I called for a report from the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate whether the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in this Court were true or not. The report which has been received from the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate to some extent supports the allegations contained in the affidavit.
The petitioners were the accused before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Devakottah, and they were proceeded against under various section of
the Indian Penal Code for having cut open the bund of a tank and thereby caused loss to the crops of the complainant. The Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, after Bending the complaint to the police for enquiry and considering the police report, dismissed the complaint under'' Section 203,
Criminal P. C. The complainant took the matter in revision and the learned Sessions Judge following a decision H.J.E. Maccarthy Vs. Lord
Shannen, to the effect that before a complaint was rejected u/s 203, Criminal P. C., the complainant should have been given an opportunity to
meet the reasons given by the police in their report u/s 202, Criminal P. C, for not proceeding with the complaint, set aside the order of the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and directed the complaint to be disposed of according to law. He was of opinion that there was a duty cast upon the Court
of enquiry to give an opportunity to the complainant to explain or meet the evidence recorded by the police during the investigation and that in this
case such duty had not been discharged.
It is not obligatory upon the Magistrate before whom the complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred, to give an opportunity to the
complainant to show that the report of the police enquiry is wrong. Section 203 does not impose such a duty. All that the Magistrate has to do is to
consider the statement on oath, if any, of the complainant as well as the result of the investigation or enquiry u/s 202, Criminal P. C., before he
dismisses the complaint. Nowhere is it stated that a Magistrate who has referred a complaint for enquiry should, after receipt of the police report,
give an opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence, to show that the report of the police is wrong or incorrect. If the view of the learned
Sessions Judge is to be accepted, then it make the provisions of Section 203, Criminal P. C. much wider than it is expressly stated.
In this case the Magistrate says that he went to the tank bund with a view to have some idea of the supply position in the tank and the condition
of the crops in connection with proceedings that were pending before him u/s 145, Criminal P. C. He reports that his inspection of the tank did not
reveal damage to the crops as stated in the complaint. Though the Magistrate did not specifically give an opportunity to the complainant to prove
that the police report was wrong�which he is not bound to do he told the complainant that the police report was against him and that the
Magistrate''s inspection of the tank did not reveal damage to the crops. The complainant had no satisfactory answer to give and the report also
does not state that he did request the Court to give him an opportunity then and there to explain the findings contained in the police report. In view
of the fact that the occurrence took place as long ago as 12th December 1946 and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate discharged the accused u/s
203 , Criminal P. C, I do not think it necessary to re-agitate the whole matter afresh. I therefore set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge
and confirm the order of discharge passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.