STATE OF MYSORE Vs. NEELKANTHGOUDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the District Magistrate, Raichur, under Section 438 Cr. P C. against the orders of the First Class Magistrate, Deodurg dated 19 -11 -64 discharging the respondents (accused) of ihe offence under Section 396 I. P. C. and dated 16 -2 -1965 acquitting the respondents of the offences under Sections 379, 341, 342 and 323. I. P. C. in case No. 20/2 of 1964.

(2.) THE Police of Jalhsdli in Dcodurg Taluk, Raichur District filed a charge sheet against the respondents for offences under Sections 395, 341, 342 and 323. I. P. C. on the allegation that on 17 -3 -64 of about 10.30 P. M. they heat one Ayyuppa (P. W. 1) and forcibly removed from his person, a wrist watch, a gold chain, a silver 'Lingadakui'. a torch and a sum of Rs. 45. The learned Magistrate held an enquiry under Section 207 -A, Cr. P. C. He recorded the evidence of three witnesses and after considering the evidence and documents referred to in Section 173 Cr. P. C., came to the conclusion that the evidence and documents disclosed no grounds for committing the respondents for trial for the offence under Section 395, I. P. C. and so discharged them. But it appeared to him that there was prima facie case against the respondents for offences under Sections 379, 341, 342 and 328. I. P. C and so ordered that the respondents should be tried before himself.

(3.) ON 16 -2 -1965. the case was not posted for evidence One of the respondents was absent in spite of that the learned Magistrate has proceeded to acquit the accused on the basis that the prosecution was not diligent and that no stay order had been communicated in fact and by inference it is clear that when a revision petition was pending against the order of the learned Magistrate and the records had been called for. the learned Magistrate could not have proceeded further and therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is an illegal order.