P T DODDIAH Vs. HANUMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has come up before us by way of reference. The facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly narrated as follows: Respondent-1 Hanumanthappa filed a private complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarikere in CC.877 of 1973 alleging that the petitioner had, as hereditary patel of Mudigere village in Tarikere Taluk, collected a sum of Rs.100 from him (respondent 1) on 20-5-1970 towards land revenue payable by him and that the petitioner had issued an official receipt, but later on respondent 1 received a demand notice demanding payment of a sum of Rs.380 and odd towards arrears of land revenue and hence he made enquiries with the petitioner and requested the petitioner to give reference for having remitted the said sum of Rs.100. The petitioner asserted that he had remitted the amount and what was demanded by the taluk office was the amount actually due from the 1st respondent after deducting the sum of Rs.100, On 14-6-1973 after sunset the Tahsildar PW.1 accompanied by the Revenue Inspector and some police officers went to respondent 1 and demanded payment of Rs.380-13 and distrained the moveables of respondent 1. Respondent averred on the basis of the afore-mentioned facts that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under S.409 IPC in regard to the said sum of Rs.100. The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration all the evidence produced by the 1st respondent, discharged the petitioner-accused. Respondent 1 filed Crl.Revn.7 of 1974 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur as against the order of discharge. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and directed the Magistrate at Tarikere to frame a charge against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. He has taken shelter under Ss.397, 401 and 482 of the CrlPC, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as as the 'Code').

(2.) The order of reference shows that a preliminary objection was taken by Shri B. K. Ramachandra Rao,, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 1 that the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in Giriyappa Gowda v. Basavarajappa, (1975) 1 KarLJ 434. As many other revision petitions involving the question as to whether the decision in Giriyappa Gowda's case(l) required reconsideration had been referred to a Bench, this petition also came to be referred to the Bench.

(3.) Section 397 (2) of the Code reads as follows :