Chandra Kumar Singh vs State and Another

S.N. Pathak, J.—This revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.5.2001 passed by Addl. Sess. Judge, I, Saharsa, in criminal revision No. 119/1999. By the aforesaid order the Sessions Judge set-aside the order of cognizance passed by Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, on 2.2.1999 in complaint case No. 536/1998.

Relevant facts in precise terms are that the revisionist before this Court had filed the aforesaid complaint case alleging therein that a report filed by O.P. No. 2 of this revision with Hindustan, Hindi Daily, making certain imputations regarding embezzlement of the fund of Vyapar Mandal was wrong or false and, hence, cognizance was sought to be taken against Navin Nishant the co-Respondent of the Daily Hindustan. The Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance after enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure against which revision was filed before the Sessions Judge by the co-Respondent and by the impugned judgment the Sessions Judge set-aside the cognizance order and remitted the case to the Judicial Magistrate for passing a fresh order.

The impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge was challenged; firstly, on the ground that the order of cognizance was an interlocutory order and, therefore, no revision could lie. This order of cognizance was assarted, secondly, on the ground that, prima facie, the report published in the Hindi Daily was apparently false because the revisionist Chandra Kumar Singh, president of the Vyapar Mandal, had already filed a case against manager of the Vyapar Mandal, Supaul, for misappropriation of fund of the Vyapar Mandal. So the allegation of embezzlement against the President was malafide and motivated.

So far the first ground that a revision does not lie against the order of cognizance, the same being an interlocution order, I am of the opinion that the word interlocutory" has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. So the question whether an order is an interlocutory order of a final order will depend on the circumstances of each and every particular case. An enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure culminates in an order passed u/s 203 or 204. The order u/s 203 is final and so, normally, revision lies against such orders. So far as the order u/s 204 is concerned, this order relates to the finding of the Magistrate that there is sufficient material to proceed against particular persons and then summons are directed to be issued. So if an order u/s 204 is passed on the basis of a police report, that will be an interlocutory order because the criminal proceeding commences pursuant to this Older; but, so far the order u/s 204 passed, as a result of the enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, that order shall be final, so far the criminal proceeding. Initiated u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned. I am, therefore, of the opinion that order passed u/s 204 in the proceeding initiated u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be revisable. So far the second ground that the complaint filed by the revision could be decided only on the trial and not in the revision, I am of the opinion that Section 500 I.P.C. refers to a report made in bonafide belief that the report is correct and that it is in public interest. The moot point, therefore, was to consider Whether a case u/s 500 I.P.C. was made out. Normally, if certain press reporters file any report with their connected daily in the bonafide belief and in the public interest, no motive can be imputed to reporters unless there is a deliberate attempt to indulge in character assignation. In the instant case, the report in question was based on information supplied to Navnit Nishant by a member of the Samta Party. Admittedly, Chandra Kumar Singh was the president of the Vyapar Mandal, Supaul, and accounts of this Vyapar mandal stood in the joint names of the President and the manager. So if certain amounts were withdrawn from the concerned banks, they must have been withdrawn under signatures of both the president and the manager. So the allegation of embezzlement, of course, may, prima facie, refer to both the manager and the president. In such circumstances, if a member of the political party gave certain information to the co-Respondent and the latter, in turn, reported the matter to his affiliated daily, prima facie, perhaps the co-Respondent was not so liable for any offence u/s 500 I.P.C. Of course, the magistrate in seisin of the enquiry u/s 202 should have taken into consideration the principles of law as enjoined by Section 500 I.P.C. The Sessions Judge, who passed the impugned judgment in the concerned revision, did not simply set-aside the cognizance order, rather he remitted the matter to the Magistrate to pass a fresh order in the light of law laid down u/s 500 I.P.C. So I do not think the impugned order was, in any way, illegal or improper. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this revision against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge does not carry very good reasons for interference.

In the result, this revision is dismissed. However, it is observed that observations passed by the court of revision below shall not prejudice the mind of the magistrate in passing a fresh order in the enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure.