KEWAL KRISHAN S/O LACHMAN DAS V/S SURAJ BHAN AND ANR. AIR 1980 SC 1780

Advertisements

KEWAL KRISHAN S/O LACHMAN DAS V/S SURAJ BHAN AND ANR. AIR 1980 SC 1780

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Collector of Agrarian Reforms (Sub Divisional Officer, Sirsa) designated more than 3 acres of agricultural land in the revenue estate of Gidderanwali as “surplus area” and allocated it to Tenia Ram, ChanderBhan, Nihal Chand, Lal Chand, and Chaman Ram. Ram Saran Kanungo and Ram Nath Patwari went to the village of Gidderanwali on May 25, 1979, to give the land’s allottees possession. However, the possession could not be given and the warrant was returned. They were accompanied by Chander Bhan, the Tenia Ram allottees, Suraj Bhan, a relative of Chander Bhan, and their friend Banta Singh deceased. The complainant and his clerk, Charanjit, left for his fields on May 28, 1979, at 5 o’clockWhen they got close to the sugar cane field that Ranjha Ram had planted, the allottees Chander Bhan and Tehla Ram as well as the deceased Banta Singh and the aforementioned Suraj Bhan with weapons appeared there. Chander Bhan and Tehla Ram yelled at the complainant, telling him to stop since he was the same guy who had stopped them from taking possession the day before. Banta Singh then shot the complaint with his gun, but the victim took refuge in a water course and was protected from the bullet. The complainant then attempted to flee, at which point Surajbhan pulled his revolver, inflicting a bullet wound to the complainant’s right leg. Another shot was fired by Suraj Bhan towards the complainant, but it may have struck and killed Banta Singh. The deceased body of Banta Singh was then taken by the accused Suraj Bhan, Chanderbhan, and Tehla Ram, who dumped it in the complainant’s field. They removed Banta Singh’s “rifle” while leaving the corpse there. Hans Rao and Niamat Ram, who were close in the field loading a cart, saw the incident. The complainant was subsequently transported by Devki Nandan to the Civil Hospital in Sirsa the following morning for treatment. The incident was reported to the police by the complainant. He stayed there till June 13th, 1979. However, the Police did nothing about his report and instead filed a case against him and others based on Tehla Ram’s fictitious allegation. The Revenue Department employees also submitted a fraudulent report regarding the warrant of possession issued in the accused’s favour.

In the complaint, Kewal Krishan accused not only Suraj Bhan, Chander Bhan, and Tehla Ram of violating Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but also Assistant Collector Rajinder Singh, Ram Saran Dass Kanungo, and Ram Nath Patwari of aiding and abetting the other accused individuals’ criminal activities by filing false reports. In accordance with Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate questioned the complainant Kewal Krishan. According to Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he also cross-examined the complainant’s witnesses Charanjit, Naimat Ram, and Hans Raj. The Magistrate concluded the investigation under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recorded a thorough order, reviewed the evidence he had gathered, and came to the conclusion that the incident had not occurred as the complainant had claimed and that there was no evidence to support an accusation against the accused. He further pointed out that there was no proof that the three Revenue Officers in question had submitted any false reports or helped the other accused parties conduct any crimes. As a result, by order dated September 29, 1979, the Magistrate dismissed the case under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

ISSUES

1. Should Suraj Bhan’s complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been summarily dismissed by the Magistrate?
2. Whether this Court, in the exercise of its discretionary competence under Article 136 of the Constitution, should interfere with the impugned orders of the Courts below in the circumstances of this case, where the error committed by the Magistrate has not created a grave failure of justice.

ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER

By recording a positive finding that no prima facie case had been made against any of the accused named thereunder, Mr. Bhandare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contends that the Magistrate had far exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is further argued that the Magistrate is not compelled to carefully weigh the evidence under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He only needs to determine whether there are enough grounds to pursue charges against the accused. 

Learned Counsel has also gone over the provisions of Sections 202, 203, and 227 of the CrPC, 1973, pointing out that even when a case is brought on the basis of a criminal complaint, these provisions of the new Code abolish commitment proceedings and significantly limit the scope of the preliminary inquiry under Section 202. It is alleged that the Magistrate unilaterally seized the authority of the trial Court in the current matter, which was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. It is argued that by engaging in extensive cross-examination of the witnesses, the Magistrate went beyond his authority.

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT

The learned attorney for the defendants, on the other hand, argues that the magistrate was not intended to be just a post office. In order to determine whether a prima facie case had been established against the respondents, he might independently assess the statements that he had recorded under Sections 202 and 203. It is argued that the portion of the story that was attributed to Suraj Bhan was plainly untrue and blatantly unbelievable, especially the claim that he killed his companion Banta Singh. It is maintained that the accusations made in the complaint against each and every accused person were baseless and blatantly unbelievable.

 JUDGEMENT

The magistrate only needs to determine whether there is prima facie evidence supporting the charge leveled against the accused at the stage of Sections 203 and 204 in a case that can only be decided by the Court of Session by quickly skimming the complaint and the evidence gathered during the preliminary inquiry under Sections 200 and 202. He only needs to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed against the accused. Prima facie evidence is sufficient justification for serving the accused with a summons and committing them to the Court of Session for trial. The standard that needs to be used by the magistrate while examining the evidence is different from the one that needs to be taken into consideration when charges are being prepared. The magistrate is not required to methodically weigh the evidence as if he were the trial court at this point in Sections 203 and 204.

However, in cases where the magistrate has inherent authority to issue the order, his careful consideration of the material only goes beyond his authority and results in an irregularity, if not an illegality, in the exercise of his authority. In the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court will not intervene with the impugned orders of the courts below if the mistake made by the judge has not resulted in a blatant injustice.

The Supreme Court cannot be used as a general court of review to fix every single mistake of law or fact in criminal cases, and Article 136 does not function to create a right of appeal where one does not already exist. This extraordinary constitutional authority reserved for the Court is only to be used in extreme circumstances where a grievous and significant miscarriage of justice has resulted from a mistake made by the lower courts.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed because the petition is rejected.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org

https://www.scconline.com

This Article is written by Ayushi Notani of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies.

Admin