Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3637 = 1963 SLD 3637 = 1963 PLD 747
Dacca High Court
Criminal Revision No. 783 of 1960, decided on 29th August 1961.
Presented By: Sattar, J
Badrul Haider Choudhury for Petitioner.   Syed Mohsin Ali for the State.   K. A. Bakr for the Opposite-Party.

ABDUL KUDDUS----Petitioner  

VERSUS

  HIRAN BALA NANDI---Opposite-Party

Law:

Section:

  Bengal Municipal Act (XV of 1932), Ss. 3 (54), 330 & 501-Second Class Magistrate not "Magistrate" within meaning of S. 3 (54)-Order passed by such Magistrate under S. 330 read with S. 501-Without jurisdiction.   Chairman, Tollyganj Municipality v. M. Maslah Ahmed A I R 1942 Cal. 288 ref.   Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 250-Only formal complainant or informant can be proceeded against under section Person, on basis of whose information formal complaint or infor mation was made-Not liable.   Emperor v. Sumar and others 481 C 980 approved.   Muhammad Hashim v. Emperor A I R 1940 Sind 134 ref.   Emperor v. Bahawal Singh I L R 40 All. 79 dissented from. JUDGMENT   This revisional application by Abdul Quddus, an Overseer of the Khulna Municipality, is directed against the order of Mr. J. Abedin, Magistrate, Khulna, by which he directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 50 as compensation for making a false, and vaxatious report against the opposite-party Hiranbala Nandi.   The facts of the case may be shortly stated as follows:   Abdus Quddus made a report to the Administrator, Khulna Municipality that the opposite-party, Hiranbala Nandi, had erected an un-authorised Golpata Shed on her holding No. 8, Munshipara 3rd Lane, within Khulna Municipality. The Administrator thereupon filed a written complaint against the opposite-party charging her with an defence under section 330 read with section 501 of the Bengal Municipal Act.   On trial, the charge against Biranbala Nandi turned out to be false and she wasacquitted. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, asked Abdul Kuddus to show cause under section 250, subsection (A I R 1942 Cal. 288) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to why he should not pay compensation to Hiranbala Nandi.   The petitioner showed cause but the learned Magistrate was not satisfied. He, therefore, directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 50 to Hiranbala Nandi for making false and frivolous allegations.   The points that have been raised in this revision case are two. It is, firstly, contendedby Mr. Badrul Haider Chow dhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register