Ram Ajodhya Singh vs Emperor

Sen, J.—In this case it appears that the petitioner Ram Ajodhya Singh sent a telegram addreised to the Magistrate of Purnea, stating that a dacoity had had committed in his house. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, upon receiving this telegram, directed the Divisional Inspector to take seeps. The police reported the allegation about the dacoity to be intencionally false and recommended the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 211/182, I.P.C. On receiving this police report the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Perinea called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be prosecuted. Thereupon, on the 23rd April 1926 the petitioner put in a petition impugning the police report, and asserting that his allegation was true.

Ultimately the case was made over to Maulvi Nasir-ud-din Ahmad, Deputy Magistrate, who held a judicial inquiry and, finding the case to be false, dismissed the complaint u/s 203, Criminal P.C. He, however, passed no order directing the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 211/182, I.P.C., nor did he make any complaint u/s 195, Criminal P.C. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Purnea passed an order is the following terms:

Seen the order dated the 27th May 1926, of Maulvi Nisir-ud-diu Ahmad, Deputy Magistrate. Complaint of the Sub-Inspector. Korha, received on 16th March 1926. Cognizance talke. Summon accused Ran Ajodhya, Siigh u/s 211, I.P.C., for 16th June 1926.

The petitioner, there upon, filed an appeal against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate u/s 476(b), Criminal P.C., before the Sessions Judge, Purnea, who rejected the appeal and refused to move the High Court. The petitioner then moved this Court in Criminal Revision No. 696 of 1926 and this Court, by an order dated the 9th December 1926, set aside the order of prosecution u/s 211, I.P.C. and held that it was the Deputy Magistrate who held the judicial inquiry, that is, Maulvi Nasir-ud-din Ahmad, who should file the complaint u/s 195(1), Criminal P.C. and not the Inspector of Police. What happened after that was that Maulvi Nasir-ud-din Ahmad was transferred to Jamshedpur and the file was sent on to him at Jamshedpur fore action to be taken. Maulvi Nasir-ud-din Ahmad, thereupon, filed a complaint substantiall in these terms:

Under Section 195, Sub-Section (1), Clause (b), Criminal P.C. 1 complain the Rim Ajodhva Singh may be prosecuted u/s 211, I.P.C.

Now it is clear that if it was a prosecution u/s 182, he would be acting quite properly u/s 195, Clause (1), Sub-section (a); but, as he purports to act u/s 195, Clause (1), Sub-clause (b), it is open to the objection that it is only the Court in question that can do so and not the particular public servant concerned. Section 559, Criminal P.C. which is a new section, provides that the powers and duties of a Judge or Magistrate may be exercised or performed by his Successor-in-office.

Therefore it seems that the proper person to have filed a complaint for prosecution was the successor of Maulvi Nasir ud-din Ahmad in the office of Deputy Magistrate of Purnea.

The application, therefore, is granted, and the order summoning Ram Ajodhya Singh u/s 211, I.P.C., is set aside.