STATE OF MYSORE Vs. B M BURLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made under S.438 CrPC by the learned Sessions Judge of Dharwar in Criminal Revision Application No.38 of 1971.

(2.) To appreciate the contentions urged in the case, a few facts may be mentioned. The complainant Rudrappa Ishwarappa Kotre filed a complaint against 8 accused charging them with having committed offences under Ss.454, 171F, 417, 420 read with 34 and 120B IPC before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Second Court, Hubli. The learned Magistrate aften recording the sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the case and called for a police report from the Assistant Superintendent, of Police, under Sec.202 CrPC. The Asst. Superintendent of Police submitted a 'B' report on 4-2-1969. Thereafter the learned Magistrate on 17-4-1969, directed that the complaint be returned to the complainant for filing it to the proper Court. Then the complainant presented the complaint on 25-4-1969 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, First Court, Hubli. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant passed an order under S.202 CrPC referring the complaint to the PSI., Hubli Town for enquiry and report. On 23-2-1970, the PSI submitted a 'B' report to the Court. On 20-7-1970, the complainant filed a petition before the Court stating that as the PSI's report is not satisfactory, he should be given an opportunity to examine the witnesses on his behalf and filed a list of witnesses. The learned Magistrate acceeded to the request of the complainant and recorded the statements of 9 witnesses. Thereafter, on 4-10-1971 he passed the impugned order that after perusing the contents of the complaint and his verification statements and deposition of witnesses and other documents, it was seen that there was substantial ground for proceeding against all the accused excepting accused 3. Accordingly he registered a case against the said accused persons under Ss.120B, 171F, 471 read with 34, IPC. Some of the accused persons challenged the above mentioned order passed by the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge in a revision petition.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the revision petition, came to the conclusion that the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate was totally illegal and opposed to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Cdoe, and after discussing the various decisions of the High Courts, he came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was not justified in allowing the complainant, after the report of the Police under S.202 CrPC had been received, to examine the witnesses to fill in the gaps in the case, and held that even on merits the complainant did not have any case and recommended that it was a fit case for this Court to quash the entire proceedings in the interest of justice.