1942 (4) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the complaint was justified, but he acquitted the accused in view of a ruling given by Calcutta High Court in Sashadhar Acharjya v. Sir Charles Tegart AIR 1931 Cal 646 on the subject of a joint complaint. The Sessions Judge has referred to a later Calcutta ruling, Uzal Khan v. Purna Chandra (39) 43 C.W.N. 527. In his explanation, the Magistrate has said that he thought he had no option but to follow the ruling in the first case as no other ruling to the contrary was brought to his notice. It was held by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the first case cited that a joint complaint by two persons is not contemplated by the Criminal Procedure Code, because, as is clear from Section 200, in taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and therefore the Magistrate's order summoning the accused was not bad in law. It was also said that if a written complaint is made ostensibly by two persons the Magistrate has jurisdiction to examine one of them and proceed on that examination. Should it be necessary to proceed afterwards on the complaint of the second signatory, there is no bar to such action being taken. 3. Even if I concurred in the view that there was a legal defect in the procedure arising either out of the fact that one of the complainants was not examined by the Magistrate immediately after he had taken cognizance of the offence on the complaint, or out of the fact that a joint complaint by two persons is not contemplated by the Code, I should not be dispose....