# CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & ORS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 200
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-03-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. E 270 of 1968
- **Bench:** C. A. Vaidialingam, A. N. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/cricket-association-of-bengal-ors-v-state-of-west-bengal-ors-5513
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Practice-High Court-Suo Motu lnterference with orders of low!!r
courts under Crilninal Procedure Code-Propriety.
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 204(3), 248 and ~53(2)
-Powers of Magistrate under.
A complaint was filed against the first appellant and others- -office
bearers of the first appellant-under ss. 337 and 338, 1.P.C., read with s.
114, that they were rash and negligent in the matter of making seating
arrangements etc., for spectators of a cricket match, with the result that
the spectators became unruly and the police resorted to lathi charge and
the bursting of tear gas shells, causing injuries to several persons. The
Chief Presidency Magistrate examined the complainant and issued summons to the accused. Some of the office bearers challenged the order of
the Chief Presidency Magistrate in a criminal. revision before the High
Court and the High Court held: (a,l that the counsel appearing for the
complainant conceded that no offence was made out under ss. 337 and
338 read with s. 114 l.P.C., (b) that in fact, the statements in the complaint do not make out the offences under ss. 337 and 338, and (cl that
they make out only an offence under s. 336, l.P.C. and therefore the
prosecution will have to be given a chance to establish that offence against
the accused.
When the Chief Presidency Magistrate started to deal further with the matter, the complainant filed an application for leave to with~
draw the complaint against 8 accused and the Magistrate discharged those
accused under s. 253(2), Cr. P. C. The complainant filed another application
some time later seeking permission to withdraw the complaint against the
rest of the accused on the ground that • he tiled the complaint only to
voice the grievances of bana fide spectators and since the matter was being
inquired into by an Inquiry Commission to find out the persons respo!l:sibJe.
he did not intend to proceed with his complaint. The complaint as against
some of the accused was dismissed under s. 204(3 ). Cr. P. C.. on the
ground that the complainant had not deposited the necessary charges for
issue of summons, and as regards others, the Chief Presidency Magistrate
held that he could not allow the withdrawal of the complaint as the pro·
ceedings under s. 338 1.P.C., were warrant proceedings. He however passed an order discharging all the remaining accused under s. 253(2), Cr. P. C.,
because he held that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding fur·
ther with the complaint as the complainant was absent and no longer
serious.
Thereafter, a Division Bench of the High Court issued suo motu notice
to the complainant and all the accused, to show cause why the order dis·
charging the accused should not be set aside; and, after hearing the parties
the Court set aside the orders of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the
grounds that: (a) The discharge of some of the accused under s. 204(31 on
the ground that the complainant had not paid the process fee for issue of
summons was not proper, since in the relevant rules framed by the High
CltlCKET A5SCN. v. w. BENGAL (Vaidialingam,J.)
201
Court there was no provision for such payment; and (b) the or~er .disA
charging the remaining accused under s. 253(2), Cr. P. C. was not 1ustlfied
in a warrant case.
On the question whether the order of the Hiah Court was justified.
HELD: In a proper case the High Court can take action suo mvtu
aaainst lhe orders passed by the subordinate courts without being mo,-ed
by any party; but the interference with the orders of the Chief Presidency
B
Magistrate by the High Court in the present case was not justified in the
circumstances of the case. [2080]
(I) After the concession of the counsel for the complainant and the
.categorical finding of the High Court that no offence under ss. 337 and 338
l.P.C., was made out and that investigation was to be made only in respect
of ao offence under s. 336 I.P.C., the Magistrate had to proceed with the
trial only for the offence under s. 336

## Text

290
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & ORS.
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
March 24, 1971
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J
Practice-High Court-Suo Motu lnterference with orders of low!!r
courts under Crilninal Procedure Code-Propriety.
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 204(3), 248 and ~53(2)
-Powers of Magistrate under.
A complaint was filed against the first appellant and others- -office
bearers of the first appellant-under ss. 337 and 338, 1.P.C., read with s.
114, that they were rash and negligent in the matter of making seating
arrangements etc., for spectators of a cricket match, with the result that
the spectators became unruly and the police resorted to lathi charge and
the bursting of tear gas shells, causing injuries to several persons. The
Chief Presidency Magistrate examined the complainant and issued summons to the accused. Some of the office bearers challenged the order of
the Chief Presidency Magistrate in a criminal. revision before the High
Court and the High Court held: (a,l that the counsel appearing for the
complainant conceded that no offence was made out under ss. 337 and
338 read with s. 114 l.P.C., (b) that in fact, the statements in the complaint do not make out the offences under ss. 337 and 338, and (cl that
they make out only an offence under s. 336, l.P.C. and therefore the
prosecution will have to be given a chance to establish that offence against
the accused.
When the Chief Presidency Magistrate started to deal further with the matter, the complainant filed an application for leave to with~
draw the complaint against 8 accused and the Magistrate discharged those
accused under s. 253(2), Cr. P. C. The complainant filed another application
some time later seeking permission to withdraw the complaint against the
rest of the accused on the ground that • he tiled the complaint only to
voice the grievances of bana fide spectators and since the matter was being
inquired into by an Inquiry Commission to find out the persons respo!l:sibJe.
he did not intend to proceed with his complaint. The complaint as against
some of the accused was dismissed under s. 204(3 ). Cr. P. C.. on the
ground that the complainant had not deposited the necessary charges for
issue of summons, and as regards others, the Chief Presidency Magistrate
held that he could not allow the withdrawal of the complaint as the pro·
ceedings under s. 338 1.P.C., were warrant proceedings. He however passed an order discharging all the remaining accused under s. 253(2), Cr. P. C.,
because he held that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding fur·
ther with the complaint as the complainant was absent and no longer
serious.
Thereafter, a Division Bench of the High Court issued suo motu notice
to the complainant and all the accused, to show cause why the order dis·
charging the accused should not be set aside; and, after hearing the parties
the Court set aside the orders of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the
grounds that: (a) The discharge of some of the accused under s. 204(31 on
the ground that the complainant had not paid the process fee for issue of
summons was not proper, since in the relevant rules framed by the High
CltlCKET A5SCN. v. w. BENGAL (Vaidialingam,J.)
201
Court there was no provision for such payment; and (b) the or~er .disA
charging the remaining accused under s. 253(2), Cr. P. C. was not 1ustlfied
in a warrant case.
On the question whether the order of the Hiah Court was justified.
HELD: In a proper case the High Court can take action suo mvtu
aaainst lhe orders passed by the subordinate courts without being mo,-ed
by any party; but the interference with the orders of the Chief Presidency
B
Magistrate by the High Court in the present case was not justified in the
circumstances of the case. [2080]
(I) After the concession of the counsel for the complainant and the
.categorical finding of the High Court that no offence under ss. 337 and 338
l.P.C., was made out and that investigation was to be made only in respect
of ao offence under s. 336 I.P.C., the Magistrate had to proceed with the
trial only for the offence under s. 336 l.P.C. [206H ; 207 A]
C
(2) Assuming that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had still to pro-
·Ceed with the trial for offences under ss. 337 and 338 J.P.C .• and that the
·discharge under s. 204(3) Cr. P. C., was not justified. the Magistrate has
:got ample jurisdiction to discharge the accused under s. 253(2), Cr. P. C.,
and in the present case, the Magistrate had given good reasons for discharging the accused. [2078-0]
(3) On the basis that the inquiry had to proceed for an offence under
D
s. 336, I.P.C., the position would be that the summons case procedure would
have to be followed and under s. 248, Cr. P. C., the Magistrate had ample
jurisdiction to permit the complainant to withdraw the complaint, and in
fact, under that section, the Magistrate should acquit the accused, once he
permits the complaint to be withdrawn. [208A-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
E
270 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
.January 14, 17, 1968 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal
Revision No. 475 of 1967.
·
C. K. Daphtary, Na/in Chandra Banerjee, D. N. Mukherjee
and Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, for the appellants.
F ..
The respondent· did not appear.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J.-This appeal, by special leave is, directed
against the judgment and order dated 14/17 June, 1968 of the
Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
475
of 1967
reversing the orders passed by the Court of the Chief Presidency
Magistrate, Calcutta, discharging the accused-appellants.
The circumstances leading up to the order of the H1gh Court
may be indicated : The second respondent filed a complaint on
JMuary 3, 1967 before the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, .Calcutta, in respect of the incident which took place on the
G
H
202
B
c
D
I'
G
H
SUPREME COURT lll!PORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
second day (January I, 1967) of the Second Cricket Test Match
between India and West Indies at the Eden Gardens. The Test
Match was to be played under the control, management
and
supervision of the Cricket Association of Bengal, which had sold
tickets of various denominations for the game.
There
were
tickets sold for all days of the Match and. there were
arrangements made for the sale of daily tickets.
The game
started as scheduled on December 31, 1966.
The play
was
interrupted by a number of spectators scaling over the fencing
erected around the play ground and entering the cricket field;
However, nothing untoward happened on that day.
According to the prosecution, the first appellant started
selling tickets announcing that arrangements had been made for
the accommodation of about 60,000 spectators, while as a matter
of fact nearly a lakh of spectators were admitted into the enclosure. The sitting arrangement was
most inconvenient and
highly unsatisfactory.
The arrangements made
by the
first
appellant for acoommodating the persons inside the enclosure·
were so grossly inadequate that it tended to endanger the personal
safety of the spectators. On the day in question, the complainant,
who was a holder of a season ticket for ·Rs. 451 • went to attend
the game and found all the stands jampacked. Notwithstanding
this the people with tickets were being pushed into different enclosures with the result that the spectators within the enclosures
started jumping over the fence and occupied the space between
the lines of the field and the fencing. The police, unable to control
tlie rush and confusion caused by the behaviour of the crowd,
suddenly started a lathi-charge followed by the bursting of tear gas
shells. which resulted in causing injuries to various persons. This
infuriated the crowd, which retaliated by acts of arson.
The·
arrangements for going out of the enclosures were also grossly
inadequate with the result that some of the spectators who wanted'
to clear out quickly in panic sustained injuries. The Match had
to be abandoned for the day.
On these facts the complainant
alleged that the first appellant who acted most rashly and negligently in over-selling the tickets and admitting a large number
of people than could be conveniently accommodated inside theground and thereby endangered human lives and the personal
safety of thousands of spectators. It was further alleged that as
a matter of fact the rash and negligent act of the first appellant
also rmulted in hurt being caused to a number of persons, who·
had come to witness the Match. Apart from the Cricket As~
ciation of Bengal, which was the first accused, he made 33 persons
accused in his complaint petition. Those persons were the President. the Vice-President and other office bearers and Members
of the Working Committee of the Cricket Association of Bengal.
The complainant prayed for issuing summons against the
34~
\.
CRICKET~ ... w. BENGAL (Vaidialingam,I.)
accused persons under ss. 337 and 338 read with s. ll4 of the
Indian Penal Code and to proceed against them according to law.
On January 3, 1967 the Chief Presidency Magistrate examined the complainant and heard his counsel. As the Chief
Presidency Magistrate was prima facie satisfied there was a case,
he issued summons to the persons shown as accused under ss. 337
and 338 read with s. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. fixing
February 13. 1967 for appearance.
The complainant had also
made a prayer for issue of search warrants and foc seizure of
the account books and other relevant papers in the custody of
the first accused appellant and search warrants were issued on
January 6, 1967.
Some of the office bearers of the first appellant on receipt
of summons challenged befOre the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1967 the orders of the Chief Presidency Magistrate
issuing summons and search warrants.
They also prll}'ed for
quashing the complaint on the ground that the allegations even
if fully established will not establish an offence under s. 337 and I or
s. 338 read with s. 114 or any other section of the Indian Penal
Code, and that the complaint was misconceived and constitutes
an abuse of the process of the Court.
The learned Single Judge stayed further proceedings before
the Chief Presidency Magistrate and issued summons to the State
and the complainant After hearing all parties, the learned Single
Judge ultimately, by his order dated February 24, 1967, dismissed
the Criminal Revision No. 19 of 196 7. There were three points
to be noted in the order of the learned Judge, namely,
(!)
Mr. Dutt, counsel appearing for the complainant conceded before
the High Court that the process issued by the Chief Presidency
Magistrate under ss. 337 and 338 read with s. 114 of the Indian
Penal Code is misconceived (2) the High Court has given a
finding that the statements made in the petition of complaint do
not constitute the essential elements to make out offences under
ss. 337 and 338 1.P.C., and (3) nevertheless, prime facie it cannot be stated tht the elements of an offence under s. 336 1.P.C.
are not contained in the complaint, and therefore the prosecution
M'ill have to be given a chance to establish, if they can. that an
offence under s. 336 I.P.C. has been committed.
Though Ultimately the criminal revision was dismissed, it will be seen from
the aspects mentioned above that the complainant has conceded
that the allegations in the complaint will not make out an oft'l:oce
under ss. 337 and 338 l.P.C.
Apart from this conccssion, the
learned Single Judge after independently considering the avcrments in the complaint has also held that no offence under s. 337
and 338 is disclosed in the complaint and that the issue of
283
B
c
D
E
G
H
204
B
c
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
summons in respect of those offences cannot be upheld. But tfie
High Court was prepared to give an opportunity to the prose·
cution to establish, if they can, that an offence under s.
336
J.P.C., at any rate, has been committed by the accused. It is
needless to state that the Chief Presidency Magistrate was bound
to have due regard to these directions contained in the order of
the High Court when the case was to be proceeded with again
in his court.
After the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1967 by
the High Court on February 24, 1967 and in consequence of
the stay of proceedings being vacated, the
Chief
Presidency
Magistrate proceeded to deal further with the complaint.
On
March 2, 1967 the complainant filed an application before the
Chief Presidency Magistrate for leave to withdraw the complaint
against eight accused, namely, accused Nos. 8, 10, 11, 22, 26,
31, 32 and 33. The reason given by the complainant was that·
!he said accused persons had ceased to act as members of the
Working Committee at the material time. On March 20. 1967
the Chief Presidency Magistrate discharged under s. 253(2) Cr.
P.C. the eight accused as prayed for by the complainant in his
application dated March 2, 1967, after accepting
the
reasons
given therein. The accused so discharged w~re Nos. '8, 10, II, 22,
26, 31, 32 and 33.
On May 31, 1967, the complainant
filed
another application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate seek·
ing permission to withdraw the complaint against the rest of the
accused.
In that application he stated that he had filed the
complaint to voice the grievances of the bona fide
spectators,
who had purchased tickets for witnessing the Cricket Test Match.
He had further mentioned that an Inquiry Commission called
the "Sen Commission" was already inquiring into the events con-
/nected with the incident that took place on January 2, 1967 in
order to find out the persons responsible for the same.
Under
these circumstances, the complainant stated that he does
not
pntend to continue the complaint instituted by him.
On June 8, 1967, the Chief Presidency Magistrate dismissed
the complaint as against accused Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 27, 30
•and 34, under s. 204(3) Cr. P.C. on the ground that the complainant had not deposited the necessary charges for issue of
summons. It was noted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate that
the complainant though called was absent.
Dealing with
the
application dated May 31, 1967 filed by the complainant for
permission to withdraw the complaint,
the
Chief Presidency
Magistrate has stated that he cannot accord permission to with·
draw the complaint as the proceedings .under s. 338 I.P .C. are
warrant procedure proceedings. But the Chief Presidency Magis·
trate has further stated that no useful purpose will be served by
.,
CRICKET ASSCN. v. W. BENGAL (Vaidialingam,J.)
proceeding further with the complaint as
the . complainant was
not present and was also not serious to proceed with the complaint as is evident from his conduct in comitting several defaults.
For these reasons the Chief Presidency Magistrate passed an order
discharging all the other remaining accused under s. 253(2) Cr.
P.C. Therefore, it will be seen that by the two orders dated
March 20, and June 8, 1967, referred to above, the Chief Presidency Magistrate discharged all the accused and terminated the
proceedings initiated by the second respondent.
The news regarding the termination of these
proceedings
appeared in some of the Dailies in Calcutta on June 10, 1967.
On seeing the said news item, the High Court by its order dated
June 13, 1967 called for the record pertaining to the case from
the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate,
Calcutta.
On
August 1, 1967 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High
Court
issued suo moto a Rule (Criminal Revision No. 475 of 1967) to
the complainant and the 34 accused persons to show cause why
the orders discharging the accused persons passed on March ZO,
and June 8, 1967 should not be set aside.
The learned Judges after hearing all the parties, by
the
impugned judgment set aside the two orders of the Chief Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused. The Chief Presidency Magistrate was directed to proceed with the
complaint
and dispose it of according to law.
But the learned
Judges
directed that the proceedings need be continued only against
the 14 accused, namely, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13,
J 4, 15 and 26. The learned Judges have held the discharge of
some of the accused under s. 204(3) Cr. P.C. on June 8, 1967
on the grQund that the complainant has not paid the process for
issue of summons is not proper. According to the High Court
there is no provision under the relevant rules framed by the
High Court for payment of any process for issue of summons in
respect of cognizable offences whether the case is instituted on
a complaint or not.
Similarly the High Court held
that the
orders discharging, under s. 253(2) Cr. P.C. some of the accused
on March 20, 1967 and the remaining accused on June 8, 1967
are also not justified as the proceeding under s. 338 I.P.C. was
that of a warrant case.
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, learned counsel for the appellants
in
attacking the order of the High Court has pointed out tliat ihere
was no justification for the High Court to interfere silo molo
with the orders passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused; in the circumstances mentioned by him.
The counsel also pointed out that the Divisi\>n Bench has
not
properly appreciated and given effect to the directions given in
20S
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
216
SUPlllO! COURT llPOll'lll
[1971) SUPP. s.c.R.
•
c
D
E
•
G
H
the jlldgment of the learned Single Judge in Criminal Revision
No. 19 of 1961. After the onler of the learned Single Judge,
the coonsel pointed out, that the proceedings have to be continued by the Magistrate only to inquire if an offence under
s. 336 I.P.C. has been made out. In such a trial the summons case
~ure has to be adopted and the Magistrate has got ample.
jurisdiction to permit the complainant, under s. 248 Cr. P.C. to
withdraw the complaint Even on the basis that the charges
under ss. 337 and 338 survive and the warrant case procedure is
to be adopted. Magistrate has jurisdiction under s. 253(2) to
discharge the accused. Considering the matter from any point
of view, the interference by the High Court is not justified.
Ncithec the State nor the complainant has appeared before
us to support the order of the High Court We have already
1cfmed in great detail to the circumstances under which
the
imPQgDed order was passed as they give a cleBl and complete
pktute of the whole matter. We have gone through the reasoning of the learned Judges and we are satisfied that the interferena: with the orders of the Chief Presidency Magistrate by the
High Court was not justified and was not warranted in the circumstaoocs of the case.
'The fundamental error committed by the Division Bench is
that it has proceeded on the basis that the learned Single Judge
on the fonncl' occasion in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1967 has
not held that the prosecution under ss. 337 and 338 is not made
out. We have already referred to the fact that during the hearing of Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1967, Mr.
Dutt, learned
counsel appearing for the complainant conceded that the issue
of process under ss. 337 and 338 I.P .C. was misconcllived. On
the other band, the Division Bench proceeds on the basis that
no such concession has been made, which is erroneous as a fact.
Again e\'m apart from the concession. the learned Single Judge
afkc discussing the essential ingredients of an offence under
~- 337 and 338 l.P.C. has categorically held in his order tkat
the statements made in the complaint petition do not go to make
up the cssenrial ingredients for an offence under ss.
337 and
338. 'The learned Single Judge has also found that it is not
possible at that stage to say that no offence even under s. 336
l.P.C. has been committed.
It is on this reasoning that the
learned Judge. though technically did not quash the proceedings,
ga..e a dear indication that the prosecution is given a chance
to establish. if they can, that the accused have committed an
olfencc under s. 336 l.P.C. After the concession of the counsel
for the complainant and the categorical finding of the learned
Judge that no offence under ss. 337 and 338 I.P.C. is made out
&nd that an investigation is to be made only in respect of an
CRICKET ASSCN. v. w. BENGAL (Vaidialingam, :.)
207
.offence under s. 336 I.P.C., it is idle to expect the Magistrate
A
to ignore these clear directions and proceed with the trial again
for an offence under ss. 337 and 338 I.P.C., as if nothing had
happened. That is exactly what unfortunately the Division Bench
bas done. It bas ignored the concession of the counsel. It has
ignored the clear finding of the learned Single Judge as also the
directions given by him.
It is this serious mistake committed
B
by the Division Bench that has resulted in the passing of the
order under attack. The legality of the orders passed by the
Chief Presidency Magistrate can be considered from two points
of view.
Assuming that the Chief Presidency Magistrate
has
~till to proceed ·with the trial for offences under ss.
337 and
338, I.P.C. it is no doubt true that he has to follow the warrant
case procedure. Even under such circumstances, the Magistrate
C
has got ample jurisdiction to discharge the accused under s. 253(2)
P.C. Section 253 deals with the discharge of accused.
Subsection (]) deals with the discharge of an accused when the Magis-
:trate after taking all evidence referred to in s. 252 Cr. P.C. and
;making such examination of the accused, if any, as
may be
found necessary, finds that no case against the accused has been
D
made out, which if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction. Subsection (2) of s. 253 is to the following effect :
"253(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at
any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be
E
groundless."
This sub-section gives ample jurisdiction to the M'a)listrate
to
discharge an accused in the circumstances mentioned therein and
the order of discharge can be passed at any previous stage of
the case.
Sub-section (1) under those circumstances will
not
F
operate as a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate
under sub-section (2). It is under. sub-section (2) of s. 253 that
the Magistrate has discharged the accused.
He has given good
reasons in the order for discharging the accused.
~ssuming that the Division Bench is right in holding that
the discharge under s. 204(3) Cr P.C. is not justified, we
will
proceed on the basis that the said order is one of discharge under
s. 253\2).
We. have. alr~ady re.ferr~d earli~r to the. re.asons given
by the complamant m his apphcat10n seekmg perm1ss1on to withdra~ the compl~int as. well as to the reasons given
by the
Magistrate for d1s~har{lmg the accused. There is no controversy
!hat at the m~tenal time, th.e Sen Commission was
inquiring
mto th~ 1denhcal matter v:h1ch was the subject of the criminal
complamt.
Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that
G
H
208
SUPREME COURT RBPOR11l
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
A
B
c
D
the discharge of the accused by the Magistrate is either illegal or
not justified.
Even on the basis that the inquiry has to proceed for an
offence under s. 336 I.P.C., the position will be that the summons
case procedure will have to be followed.
Even then, under
s. 248 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate has ample jurisdiction to )Jennit
the complainant to
withdraw
the complaint.
In fact under
s. 248 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate should acquit the accused, once
he permits the complaint to be withdrawn.
Even if the oraer
of discharge is to be treated as passed in a case where summons
case procedure is to be followed, it was within the jurisdiction of
the Magistrate and hence it cannot be characterized as either
illegal or not justified.
We accordingly hold that the Division Bench was not justified
in interfering with the orders dated March 20, and June 8, 1967
passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, in the circumstances
of this case. We, however, make it clear that we have no doubt
that in proper cases the High Court can take action suo moto
against the orders passed by the subordinate courts without being
moved by any party.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order
of the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 475 of 1967 are set
aside and the orders of the Chief Presidency Magistrate dated
March 20, and June 8, 1967 will stand restored.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed.