Ratto Singh and Another vs Kari Singh

In this case the complainant and the accused both bear the same name Mannu Singh. The offence in the present case may be briefly described as one under the Registration Act and also under the Penal Code concerning the genuineness of a bill of sale said to have been executed between the parties. In the first instance, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the course of last year, discharged the accused. An application was then made to the District Magistrate for a further enquiry, not only against Mannu Singh but also against others who were charged with being connected with the same offence. The District Magistrate, however, expressly directed a further enquiry only as against Mannu Singh. Proceedings were then taken against the said Mannu Singh in the Court of the Sessions Judge which ended in his conviction. The original complainant or rather his son, for the original complainant had died, then applied to the District Magistrate for a further enquiry against the other persons accused. In fact, he renewed the former application made on the previous year which had been disallowed by the District Magistrate and the present District Magistrate who is another officer and not the Magistrate who passed orders in the case last year has thought proper to order a further enquiry into the case against the other accused persons. On motion made to this Court, a Rule has been granted to consider this order. The first objection taken is, in our opinion, alone fatal to this case, for it has been alleged and no one appears to contradict that allegation that no notice was served on the accused before the order for further enquiry was made. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court that such an omission is fatal to the validity of the order in question.

There is another ground, however, which has been taken and which also occurs to us, viz., that the District Magistrate was not competent, in the face of his predecessor''s order, to direct a further enquiry which had been already refused in respect to the other accused persons. It is, however, not improbable that, in the course of the further proceedings taken and more especially in the course of the Sessions trial, facts may have been elicited which might be sufficient to justify such an order, but we think having regard to what has taken place, that when the case had been regularly tried by the Court of Session, the proper officer to direct the further enquiry was not the District Magistrate in opposition to his predecessor''s order but the Sessions Judge who was in a better position to judge of the facts of the case and to pass such orders as might be necessary for the ends of justice. The Sessions Judge, however, has, we observe, taken no action in the matter. We, therefore, take it that, as matters stand, he considered that no further enquiry and no proceedings against the other accused were necessary. For these reasons we think that the order for further enquiry must be set aside and the Rule made absolute.