Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Pacha Alias Naran Naskar and ors. Vs. the King

Pacha Alias Naran Naskar and ors. vs The King

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Nov 07, 1949
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/861607

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. No. 635 of 1949
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 156(3) and 190

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pacha Alias Naran Naskar and ors.

Advocate Binod Behari Haldar, Adv.

Respondent

The King

Advocate S.S. Mukherjee, Adv. and ;Sambhu Nath Banerjee, Sr. Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 156(3) and 190
Reported In
AIR1950Cal246,54CWN181

Excerpt

- .....haldar alleging that the present petitioner had set fire to a stack of straw on 18th december 1948, and that they were guilty of offences under the penal code. it is clear from the order sheet that the magistrate took no action at all except to send the complaint to the officer-in-charge of the mandirbazar police station for taking cognizance. in fact that is the allegation made in para. 2 of the petition.3. the police investigated and eventually framed a charge sheet and the case proceeded in court based on the charge sheet. later it was suggested that the whole of the proceedings were void ab initio because the magistrate had acted wrongly and reliance was placed on a number of authorities including a very recent authority of this court to which i am a party.4. it is quite clear that a magistrate may order an investigation by the police and it appears to me that that was all the magistrate did in this case. section 156 (3) expressly provides that any magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as mentioned in the preceding sub-sections of that section.5. the magistrate of course can also take cognizance of the offence, examine the complainant and if necessary send the complaint to the police for investigation and report. it as a result of such an order the police submit a charge sheet and proceedings are based thereon, such proceedings, according to the recent authorities, would be wholly without jurisdiction. however, if the magistrate does not take cognizance, but merely forwards the complaint to the police for investigation and for taking cognizance he acts under section 156 (3), criminal p. c , and a charge-sheet can be submitted by the police and proceedings based thereon.6. the view of the learned magistrate in this case cannot possibly be assailed and. accordingly the petition fails and is dismissed. the rule is discharged.

Full Judgment

Harries, C.J.

1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Magistrate whereby he declined to hold that certain proceedings were void ab initio.

2. A complaint was made to a learned Magistrate by one Khagendra Nath Haldar alleging that the present petitioner had set fire to a stack of straw on 18th December 1948, and that they were guilty of offences under the Penal Code. It is clear from the order sheet that the Magistrate took no action at all except to send the complaint to the Officer-in-charge of the Mandirbazar Police Station for taking cognizance. In fact that is the allegation made in para. 2 of the petition.

3. The Police investigated and eventually framed a charge sheet and the case proceeded in Court based on the charge sheet. Later it was suggested that the whole of the proceedings were void ab initio because the Magistrate had acted wrongly and reliance was placed on a number of authorities including a very recent authority of this Court to which I am a party.

4. It is quite clear that a Magistrate may order an investigation by the police and it appears to me that that was all the Magistrate did in this case. Section 156 (3) expressly provides that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as mentioned in the preceding sub-sections of that section.

5. The Magistrate of course can also take cognizance of the offence, examine the complainant and if necessary send the complaint to the police for investigation and report. It as a result of such an order the police submit a charge sheet and proceedings are based thereon, such proceedings, according to the recent authorities, would be wholly without jurisdiction. However, if the Magistrate does not take cognizance, but merely forwards the complaint to the police for investigation and for taking cognizance he acts under Section 156 (3), Criminal P. C , and a charge-sheet can be submitted by the police and proceedings based thereon.

6. The view of the learned Magistrate in this case cannot possibly be assailed and. accordingly the petition fails and is dismissed. The Rule is discharged.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial