KITTI ALIAS KITTARAJU Vs. THAMMAIAH SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the Order made by the learned Sessions Judge. Chikmagalur, in Cr. R. P. No. 17 of 1966 on his file, on 24-10-1966. The learned Sessions Judge by his order has set aside the order of discharge made by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Chikmagalur, in C. C. No. 1008/65. It has also directed that the accused, the present revision petitioners should be arrested and a fresh enquiry be held in the manner prescribed by law under Section 207-A Cr. P C. He has further directed that the Magistrate should direct the police concerned to submit a charge sheet against the concerned accused persons.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of this application are briefly as follows: One Thammaiah Setty, a resident of Chikmagalur Town, lodged a complaint against the present revision petitioners namely Kitti and Jagga, who were also the residents of Chikmagalur Town. The allegations in the said complaint were that the complainant and the accused were neighbouring cultivators of lands which were Separated by a road and situated in Khasaba Hobli of Chikmagalur. It was also alleged that since 7-9-1965 there were differences between them as regards the right to the use of water for cultivation by the accused. He has further alleged that on 17-9-1986 his brother Siddappa Setty went to his field at 4 a.m to attend to some agricultural operation at about 6-30 am, on the same day, one Ameer, a jutka driver, Informed the complainant that the said Siddappa had been beaten and buried, leaving his face exposed and covered with thorns and that he should go quickly to the spot. On arriving at the spot along with others, he found Siddappa in the posture described by Ameer He further alleges that he complained to the police and that a police officer came to the spot and removed Siddappa to the hospital He also complained that no further action was taken by the police. That way the reason for his approaching the Court on 21-9 1965 the date on which the complaint petition was presented by Mm.

(3.) The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 21-9-1965. It is relevant to set out the sworn statement as much of the argument addressed at the Bar centred round the question whether the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint with a view to taking further action under the Criminal Procedure Code. The statement is as follows: