Jaijai Ram vs Suphal Singh

We have heard Mr. Dass in support of his application, and no cause is shown on the part of the Crown against this Rule. The Officiating Magistrate of Monghyr, however, has submitted his replies, in his letter to this Court, upon the several grounds on which this Rule was granted. His reply with regard to the failure on the part of the Magistrate to give notice to the Petitioner before directing further inquiry, which was the substantial ground on which the Rule was granted, is that no such notice is necessary. In point of law that may perhaps be so; but as was laid down by a Full Bench of this Court, in the matter of Hari Das Sanyal v. Saritulla I. L. R. 15 Cal. 608, it is proper before passing an order under sec. 437, Criminal Procedure Code, for a further inquiry that notice should be given to the accused person. The decision appears to have escaped the notice of the Officiating Magistrate, and we now draw his attention to it. The Rule laid down by that decision is intended for the guidance of Courts subordinate to this Court; and whatever the opinion of the Magistrate in respect of the law on the subject may be, he must conform to what has been laid down by this Court.

We set aside the order of the Magistrate, in so far as it concerns the Petitioner Jaijai Ram, by which he directed, under the provisions of sec. 437, Criminal Procedure Code, a further inquiry into the case, and we direct the Magistrate to give the Petitioner Jaijai Ram the opportunity of being heard upon the question, whether, in so far as he is concerned, any further inquiry should be made. Having heard him upon that point, the Magistrate will proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law.