LACHHMI NAND Vs. GOBIND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This renision has basn presented in this Court under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. ag-inst the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu. dated 23rd March, 1967. by means of which the Court of the Sessions Judge avowed the revision and setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint of the complainant under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code remanded the case to the trial Court for further enquiry into the complaint and for taking further action in accordance with Jaw

(2.) It appears that a complaint had been filed by Gabind Ram (respondent in this Court) against 43 accused persons under section 4 7/147, 1. P. C. The complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate for investigation and report under section 136(3), Criminal Procedure Code On receipt of the report from the police, the learned Magistrate trying the case, passed an order on 28th June 1966 summoning the complainant for 7th July, 1960. On the said date of bearing, the complainant desired to produce the orders of the Tehsildar by means of which the land in question had been entered in his name in the revenue papers. The case - was accordingly adjourned to 22nd July, 1966 for further action. On that date of bearing, the complainant was not present, when the case was called However, an application was received by past under registered cover from the complainant stating that he hid applied for transfer of the case in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. No stay order having been received by the learned Magistrate, the complainant was ordered by means of a notice to produce the stay order on 10th August. 1966, and it was observed that in case of defa'.ilt, the Court would proceed with the case. It was in these circumstances that of 10th August, 1966, the learned Magistrate proceeded to deal with the merits of the case in the absence of the production of the stay order The learned Magistrate observed in his order that it was not proper for the Patwari of the area to enter the possession of the complainant on a piece of land, thereby imparting the right of other right-holders without any specific orders from the superior officer. On this observation, he directed that the Collector be moved in this behalf and that an enquiry be held into the matter. The complaint was also dismissed under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. In the end of the typed order, I also find that the presence of the complainant was noted in pen and ink in the following word : - "The complainant was present'

(3.) On revision, the learned Sessions Judge. as observed earlier, set aside this order of dismissal and remitted the case back for further enquiry. The learned Sessions Judge felt that the dismissal of complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, was not a lawful order because after 22nd July, 1966 the learned Magistrate was not competent to take further proceedings and that be was bound to adjourn the proceedings to await the order of the Sessions Judge on the transfer application.