(1.) This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Raichur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/7 of 1964 on his file recommending that the order of discharge passed by the First Class Magistrate, Lingasugur in C.C. No. 162/1 of 1964 be set aside.
(2.) The facts material for appreciating the point arising in the reference are as follows: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Hutti submitted a charge-sheet against the seven respondents complaining that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of beating the complaint was sitting on the Daivada katta of the village, they beat him and caused him minor injuries. The charge-sheet was for offences punishable under Ss. 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate treated this case as a warrant case and after perusing the documents referred to under S. 173 and hearing the Police Prosecutor and the Advocate for the accused passed an order of discharge under S. 251-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In passing this Order, he assigned a number of reasons for holding that the 'records of the police enquiry are not sufficient to frame a charge against these accused'. At the end, he observed that the charge against the accused was 'groundless' and passed the impugned order. When the State approached the learned Sessions Judge the latter was of the view that the case was at a preliminary stage when the records could not be said to disclose legal evidence and that the Magistrate had gone far beyond the limitations of S. 251-A(2) of the Code in passing the order of discharge. In support of his order the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the decision in Mahadevan v. Laxminarayan, (S) AIR 1957 Mys 40 and Abbas Beary v. State of Mysore, 1964 Mad LJ (Cr.) 573: (AIR 1965 Mys 35).
(3.) Section 251-A was introduced by Act XXVI of 1955 in order to ensure speedy disposal of warrant cases instituted on Police report without in any way of prejudicing the accused. Sub-section (1) of that section enjoins upon the Magistrate to satisfy himself that the documents referred to in S. 173 of the Code have been furnished to the accused and if he finds that the accused has not been furnished with any such document or all of them, it is obligatory on him to see that the same are furnished to the accused. Then comes sub-section (2), the scope of which requires examination to this case. "251-A(2). If, upon consideration of all the documents referred to in S. 173 and making Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate 'considers the charge against the accused to be groundless', he shall discharge to be groundless, then he shall discharge the accused.