Umed Raja and anr. Vs. Emperor

practice - district magistrate ordering witnesses in a case before a subordinate magistrate to be made co--accused--witnesses not to be prosecuted ordinarily before close of case. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it si open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that the accused does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is frame d at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. it is not a requirement und4r section 3 of the atrocities act that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint. in other words, if there is no mention of the caste of the accused in the fir, that cannot be a ground for either not registering the offence under section 3 of the act or for quashing such complaint.....or revision). however, he did interfere and this is the order he made : if the case was sent up by the police (it does not seem that it was) they should be directed to send up a complaint against the two witnesses also. 'i pause here, because i see no objection to this part of the order if it was made by the district magistrate acting as a police officer. but i do see an objection to it if it was made by him as a magistrate. the order then goes on : if it was taken up on complaint, the magistrate should cause a complaint to be laid against the two witnesses, preferably by the present complainant, and if he refuses, by any clerk.' this order, if it means anything, means that the magistrate trying a case is directed by a superior court, whatever his own view of the case may be, to make a complaint against a witness in the case he is trying or to order some clerk to do the same thing. i do not understand on what power conferred on him as a magistrate the district magistrate was then relying, nor do i understand the reasonableness of such an order. on general principles, unless there be something very unusual, a magistrate trying a case should be left to try it in his own way, and should not be interfered with during the course of the trial. if it transpires in the course of the case that criminal proceedings ought to be taken against any who have given evidence, those proceedings ought ordinarily to await the conclusion of the case, and certainly they ought to be instituted ordinarily by the order of, or an application to, the magistrate who has tried the case and who is conversant with all the circumstances. the order, which the district magistrate has made, seems to me to offend against those principles. moreover, it is, as i have already indicated, an order which he has no authority whatever to make under any provision of the code of criminal procedure.3. therefore, i think, it should be set aside.shah, j.4. i entirely concur.