In Re: Amin Kariadar

This is a rule to show cause why an order directing further inquiry under sec. 437, Cr. P. C., should not be set aside upon the ground that it was made without notice to the Petitioners. The learned District Magistrate in showing cause has correctly remarked that there is nothing in see. 437 rendering it incumbent upon him to give such notice; but after referring to a ruling of the Allahabad High Court, he goes on to say that this Court has not laid down any definite rule on the subject. Here the District Magistrate is in error. In the leading Full Bench case of Hari Das Sanyal v. Sariutullah ILR 15 Cal. 608 (1888), it was held that although no notice to an accused person was necessary in point of law, yet " no Court would be exercising a proper discretion in such a matter if, before proceeding under sec. 437 to order a further inquiry in a case in which the accused person may have been discharged, it did not first give him an opportunity, by service of a notice, to show cause against such an order being made." The rule is made absolute and the order for further inquiry is set aside.