STATE OF MYSORE Vs. NAGAPPA SANNIGAPPA SANNAKKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which have given rise to this revision case briefly stated are thus : The complainant instituted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and Additional Munsiff, Ranebennur, on February 12, 1970 against one Ninganagouda Shivanagouda Patil and another alleging that they had committed theft of a pair of bullocks. The learned Magistrate, referred the matter for investigation to the Police to satisfy himself about the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The police sent a 'B' report on June 1st, 1970, stating that the allegations made by the complainant were false. The learned Magistrate did not accept the 'B' report. The complainant examined himself and one witness in support of his case. The learned Magistrate at that stage looked into the papers relating to the investigation made by the police and on the basis of the information contained therein, observed :

(2.) IT is clear from the facts stated above that the learned Magistrate without considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant has proceeded to pass the impugned order merely on the basis of the report of the police. This is clearly illegal. No order has been passed on the complaint petition filed by the complainant. Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code lays down that the Court may after such preliminary enquiry, if any, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court etc. In other words, the Court has got to satisfy whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offences referred to in sub -section (1), clause (b) or clause (c) of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court. The power given by the Section, should be used with care and after due consideration. It is by no means in every instance in which a party fails to prove his case that the Judge who has decided against the said party, is justified in exercising the powers given to him by this Section.

(3.) HAVING regard therefore, to the facts of the case, I am of opinion that this is a case in which I ought to interfere. I accordingly quash the proceedings that have been started against the complainant. Petition allowed.