SATHYANARAYANA KAMATH Vs. REVANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the complainant against the order dated 14-3-86 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in S.C.21/84 refusing to interfere with the order dated 26-3-84 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga in C.C.57/82. On a private complaint filed by the petitioner on 24-4-82, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as can be seen from the order sheet dated 27-4-82, recorded the sworn statements of the complainant and his one witness and ordered the registration of the case and issued process against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 395, 354 and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. That order issuing process was challenged by the accused persons in criminal revision petition No. 343/82. This Court set aside the said order issuing the process on the ground that the Court without taking cognizance initially had proceeded to record the sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses, and sent back the case to the Court of C.J.M., Shimoga for disposal according to law. After the case was sent back, the Chief Judicial Magistrate again recorded the sworn statements of the complainant and his one witness and issued process for the offences under Sections 395, 354 and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Ultimately the proceedings dragged on in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He, by his order dated 26-3-1984, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the complainant filed an application in the Sessions Court to quash the commitment and to remand the matter to the Magistrate for enabling him to examine all the witnesses. This application was rejected by the Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.

(2.) A question arose before this Court in NAGANA GOUDA v. KAMALAXI, ILR1986 KAR 1229 as to whether in cases exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was incumbent on the complainant to examine himself and all his witnesses. In the said case Kudoor, J. held:

(3.) However, in a later case - ABDUL KHADER v. MOHAMMED FAIZUDDIN, ILR1987 KAR 832 , Patil, J. while dealing with this question has held: