STATE Vs. JOGINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4th March, 2010 dismissing the revision petition and the judgment dated 9th May, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in PFA Case No. 166/99 discharging the Respondent.

(2.) Learned APP for the State contends that the learned Judges without appreciating the evidence passed the impugned judgments on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is contended that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate after issuing the notice to the Respondent discharged them summarily without asking the Petitioner to lead any evidence. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality or infirmity and the conclusion reached by the learned Judge is based upon the report of the Director, CFL which supersedes the report of the public analyst. The judgment is well-reasoned and calls for no interference by this Court.