Jamuna Singh vs Laldhari Singh and Others

Varma, J.—This is an application on behalf of one Jamuna Singh against whom a complaint was filed by the learned Munsif of Hajipur for having used a hand-note which he thought was forged. The hand-note is dated the 8th November 1928 (corresponding to 11th Kartick 1336 F.); and the paper on which it is written has got a water-mark. That water-mark shows that the paper was manufactured in 1929. On the strength of this discrepancy the learned Munsif filed a complaint on the 24th November 1933, and sent it to the Subdivisional officer of Hajipur. The complaint is rather curiously worded which may be due to a slip or inexperience; but unfortunately for the accused it contains all the elements that go to constitute a complaint. The Munsif evidently did not feel sure as to which section would apply to the facts of the case.

Therefore, he mentioned a section which is not at all applicable as noticed by the lower appellate Court; but he added "or in any other section which may apply in this case." On the strength of this complaint, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the 27th November 1933. In the meantime the petitioner went to the learned District Judge, who in his appellate order pointed out certain defects in the wording of the complaint by the Munsif and suggested that a fresh complaint should be filed with a fresh list of witnesses if possible. The legal position would have become complicated if any legal steps were taken on the second or supplementary petition which was filed on the 14th March 1934. But looking at the order-sheet, I find that when cognizance had already been taken on the 27th November 1933, it was not at all necessary to take further cognizance of the same offence.

The chief point which has been urged by Mr. B.N. Mitter appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that there should have been a preliminary enquiry u/s 476, of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a complaint was filed by the Munsif. A preliminary enquiry is discretionary u/s 476. In a case like this when a prima facie case had been made out. I do not see how a preliminary enquiry would help the accused. There is the water-mark in the paper there is the date mentioned in the hand-note. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case; but certainly it is a case which needs investigation.

The other point suggested was that the original case was not tried. The petitioner was the plaintiff in that case. He filed the hand-note along with the plaint or soon after the plaint was filed. As a matter of fact this hand-note was the basis of the plaint. If it was not tried, evidently the petitioner did not like that the case should be tried. No complaint can be made of that now. Sections 476 and 195 are intended really to prevent indiscriminate prosecutions under the various sections mentioned therein. Once the bar is removed there is no difference between the cases mentioned in Sections 476 and 195 and any other case, e.g., if a complaint is filed u/s 471 and it appears that some other offence also has been committed, it is not necessary to have a fresh complaint. In this case the curious wording of the first complaint has given the learned Advocate, Mr. B.N. Mitter a good deal of material to argue.

But all that has been set at rest by the charge against the petitioner framed on the 14th April 1934; and that u/s 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances, I do not think that it is a case in which I should like to interfere. Let the record be sent back forthwith and let the case proceed.