AIR 1979 SC 777
| Case Name | Kamlapati Trivedi v/s State Of West Bengal |
| Citation | AIR 1979 SC 777 |
| Date Of Judgment | December 13, 1978 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Case no. | Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1972 |
| Case Type | Criminal Case |
| Appellant | Kamlapati Trivedi |
| Respondent | State Of West Bengal |
| Bench | Justice Jaswant Singh, Justice P.S Kailasam, Justice A.D. Koshal |
FACTS
Believing that the appellant had filed criminal proceedings Bhartiya Primary School in Howrah’s secretary is Satya Narayan Pathak. Kamlapati Trivedi, the appellant before us, worked as the head teacher at the Bhartiya Primary School. Satya Narayan Pathak sent the appellant with a Notice on April 18, 1970, requesting that he provide justification for not being found responsible for dereliction of duty. The appellant sought to remove some records from the school after receiving the Notice, but was unsuccessful. The Police registered an offence under Sections 147, 448, and 379 I.P.C. after treating the appellant’s complaint as a First Information Report. In relation to Satya Narayan Pathak and others, an arrest warrant has been issued. On the days set for submitting the police report, 21-5-1970 and 21-7-1970,
Satya Narayan Pathak appeared in court on both occasions. Satya Narayan Pathak and the other identified defendants were cleared
of all charges after the police officer who conducted the investigation concluded that there was no evidence to support their claims. The magistrate concurred with the findings and released all the defendants. Satya Narayan Pathak filed a complaint against the appellant for offences under Sections 211 and 182 of the I.P.C. on October 20, 1970, for violations of Sections 147, 448, and 379 with the intent to harm him and others, knowing that there was no just or legal ground for doing so, and had already caused him financial loss and suffering. Under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate summoned the appellant after taking cognizance of the case. setting the appellant’s appearance for December 10th, 1970. The appellant appeared in court on November 16th, 1970, and was granted
bail. The appellant requested that the High Court of Calcutta annul the Magistrate’s procedure on the grounds that the Magistrate’s cognizance was improper and without jurisdiction due to a violation of Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. By decision dated August 18, 1971, the learned Judge declined to halt the proceedings and release the defendants. The current appeal to this Court has been lodged in defiance of the Single Judge of the High Court’s decision.
LEGAL ISSUES
Whether on the facts of the case the bar against taking cognizance in Section 195(1)(b) is attracted.
ARGUMENTS
The appellant claimed before the Honorable court that pursuant to the provisions, no court may take cognizance under Section 211, but rather, such cognizance may be taken in such kinds of offences upon the filing of a written complaint by a magistrate or by a public employee. There is currently no formal complaint from a judicial or public official. As a result, SDJM is in violation of section 195’s restrictions. The appellant also stated that SDJM is recognised as a court since a court is established by statute and is to be regarded as a court while it exercises its judicial powers; as such, SDJM is likewise regarded as a court unless doing administrative or executive functions.
JUDGEMENT
The accusation made against the appellant related to a crime allegedly committed in connection with a legal action. Since neither the Magistrate nor a superior court had filed a written complaint, the Magistrate violated the bar in section 195(1)(b) by taking cognizance of the case. It is not a requirement for a magistrate to be regarded as a court that he or she take cognizance of any offence under section 190. Magistrates must be recognised as courts because they are officially identified as such in Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that a magistrate also conducts executive level tasks that are outside the purview of judicial responsibilities, and it is conceivable to claim that in carrying out those tasks, he does not act in the capacity of a court. But when he operates in a judicial manner, he
cannot help but be viewed as a court. Sections 496 and 497, which deal with bail issues, refer to a magistrate who deals with those issues as a court. These provisions are applicable at all stages of a case, even when the inquiry has just begun. There is nothing to suggest that the word “court” has been used in two separate contexts in either of these sections or in s. 195, so the legislature must be assumed to have only used it in one connotation throughout the Code. The widely recognised view is that a court established by statute would be assumed to behave as a court when it conducts judicial functions, and
magistrates’ courts are viewed as such unless they are carrying out executive or administrative functions. In determining whether the authority works as a court or merely as a quasi-judicial tribunal, the authority’s source of power, namely
whether it is executive or judicial power, would be crucial. ”All words and
expressions used herein and defined in the IPC and not hereinabove defined shall be deemed to have the meanings respectively attributed to them by the Code,” the Code of Criminal Procedure states in Section 4(2). The Indian Penal Code, which contains the substantive law, and the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with procedure, may be viewed as
complementary to one another in the subject of administering criminal
justice. The Indian Penal Code’s Sections 19 and 20 utilize the terms “Judge” and “Court of justice” respectively, which give an idea of what a court is like in terms of criminal law generally. Despite the fact that the term “court of justice” has not been used in the Cr. P.C., the word “Judge” is used in s. 197, and when a judge—
including a magistrate—who is authorised to act judicially does so, they constitute a Court of Justice rather than just a court. The question of whether a specific provision in Chapter XIV is restricted to the Magistrate’s supervisory jurisdiction in respect to the investigation being conducted by the police or interacts with his judicial powers as a court is not resolved by the chapter’s caption. Although Chapter XIV is titled “Information to the police and their powers to investigate,” it deals with problems that may arise after the investigation has been completed and is not limited to issues that are exclusively related to the investigation stage. It is not required for the parties to have a right to be heard and present evidence at every step of the proceedings before a tribunal for it to be acting in the capacity of a court. The presiding officer of a court does perform
court-like functions, such as delivering interlocutory orders and granting temporary injunctions. All orders made by a magistrate acting in a judicial capacity (such as orders of bail, orders made pursuant to subsection (3) of Section 173 of the Code discharging the accused, or orders made taking cognizance of an offence complained of) are components of a whole that may result in a final judgement following an
investigation, a trial, or earlier, depending on the circumstances present at the time, and which involves, as necessary, the introduction of evidence. They cannot be seen in isolation or assigned a personality distinct from the whole judicial system of which they are a part.
JUSTICE KAILASAM (Dissenting) The principle guiding the prohibition against the institution of criminal proceedings by a private party is that the appropriate
authority should always be given
preference when filing a complaint when crimes are committed against legitimate authority, when false evidence is presented, or when crimes are committed against public justice. A court’s responsibility is to render a final judgement that declares all parties’ rights and resolves disputes in a just manner. A court decision requires that the parties have a right to be heard in support of their claims and to present evidence to support those claims. Additionally, it places a duty on the authority to decide the case after carefully weighing the available evidence and the law.It is established law that when a Magistrate applies his mind to complaints, he must be considered to have taken cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint; however, when he does so to order an investigation under section 156(3)
of the Criminal Procedure Code or to issue a search warrant for the purpose of an investigation, he cannot be considered to have taken cognizance of any offence. It is unclear if the Magistrate is functioning as a court when he accepts a report under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code that there is insufficient evidence or a reasonable basis for suspicion. However, he may be acting in the course of his judicial duties. At this point, the majority of the requirements for a court are absent. An authority must be mandated with the duty to resolve conflicts in a judicial way and declare the rights of parties in a final judgement in order to qualify as a court. This entails that the parties have a legal right to be heard in favour of their claim and to present evidence to support it, and that the authority has a duty to determine the case after taking all relevant evidence into
account and in line with the law.
Investigation is taking place as part of the s. 167 Cr. P.C. procedure. The magistrate to whom the accused is brought may occasionally permit the detention of the accused for a total of no more than 15 days in the custody that magistrate deems appropriate. If he believes that additional detention is required but lacks the authority to try the case or commit it for trial, he may order that the accused be sent to a magistrate who does. The Magistrate is involved in police investigations in a supervisory capacity. Due to the
Magistrate’s restricted authority and lack of jurisdiction to hear the matter, their actions cannot be construed as those of a court. After the offence has been recognised, the trial can only begin.When bail may be granted for offences that are not subject to bail is outlined in Section 496.According to
sections 496 and 497 of the law, a person who is being held on suspicion of a crime for which there is no possibility of a bond must appear in court at any point during the legal process. The provision addresses the use of a court’s authority whenever an accused person is presented before a court while still in the custody of a police officer. The criteria for constituting a court for the purposes of statute 195(2) have not been met, even though there may be certain court-like trappings and the statute itself uses the word “court.”
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117903/
written by Jahanvi Sahu intern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments