1978 (12) TMI 190 - SC - Indian Laws

Magistrate Granting Bail: Considered Court for Offenses

KAMLAPATI TRIVEDI Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

KAMLAPATI TRIVEDI Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 1979 AIR 777, 1979 (2) SCR 717, 1980 (2) SCC 91 Issues Involved:1. Whether the Magistrate acts as a court when passing orders for bail and discharge based on police reports.2. Whether the offence under Section 211 IPC can be considered as committed in relation to proceedings in any court.3. Application of Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Magistrate acts as a court when passing orders for bail and discharge based on police reports:The Supreme Court examined whether the Magistrate acts as a court when passing orders for bail and discharge based on police reports. The relevant sections of the CrPC, including Sections 6, 496, and 497, were analyzed. It was established that Magistrates are specifically labeled as courts by Section 6, and thus, when they act judicially, they must be regarded as courts. The Court noted that the Code does not differentiate between functions performed by a Magistrate before or after taking cognizance under Section 190. Sections 496 and 497, which deal with bail matters, describe a Magistrate as a court, indicating that a Magistrate acts as a court at all stages of a case, including during the investigation.The Court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England and the opinion of Lord Sankey in Shell Co. of Australia Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation, which distinguishes between courts and quasi-judicial tribunals. The Court concluded that a Magistrate, when performing judicial functions such as granting bail or discharging an accused, acts as a court.2. Whether the offence under Section 211 IPC can be considered as committed in relation to proceedings in any court:The Court analyzed whether the offence under Section 211 IPC, which involves instituting false criminal proceedings, can be considered as committed in relation to proceedings in any court. The Court examined the stages of investigation and the role of the Magistrate in accepting police reports under Sections 169 and 173 of the CrPC. It was noted that when a Magistrate agrees with a police report and discharges an accused, he is performing a judicial act, thereby acting as a court.The Court also considered the implications of bail and remand proceedings, which are judicial in nature and form part of the court's function. Therefore, the offence under Section 211 IPC, when related to such proceedings, is considered as committed in relation to proceedings in a court.3. Application of Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC bars courts from taking cognizance of certain offences, including Section 211 IPC, unless there is a complaint in writing by the court in relation to which the offence was committed. The Court examined whether the proceedings before the Magistrate, including the acceptance of the police report and the grant of bail, constituted proceedings in relation to a court.The Court held that the orders passed by the Magistrate for bail and discharge are judicial acts and thus constitute proceedings in a court. Consequently, the offence under Section 211 IPC, being in relation to these proceedings, falls within the ambit of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. Therefore, the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence without a complaint in writing by the court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the Magistrate acts as a court when passing orders for bail and discharge based on police reports. The offence under Section 211 IPC can be considered as committed in relation to proceedings in a court. Consequently, the bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC applies, requiring a complaint in writing by the court for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence. The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court was set aside, and the proceedings against the appellant were quashed.