HAMEED Vs. SUGATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant was said to be at the material time working as a pharmacist at the E. S. I. Dispensary, Chathanoor. THE 5th accused is the Additional Insurance Medical Officer who was in charge of the dispensary and the 1st accused is the Sub Inspector of Police, Chathanoor. THE second accused is the Head Constable and accused 3 and 4 are constables attached to the Chathannoor Police Station.

(2.) IT is said that on a complaint made by the 5th accused alleging theft of medicine from the dispensary with the connivance and instigation of the revision petitioner herein, the revision petitioner was arrested on 10-7-1978 from the dispensary.

(3.) THE learned advocate appearing for the first accused submitted that there is no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate while recording the sworn statement of the complainant; that a reading of the sworn statement will show that there was no meticulous cross-examination as alleged and therefore on that ground the order in question cannot be interfered with. THE counsel further submitted that the exaggerated versions in the complaint itself are sufficient to show or indicate that the complaint is false; that this complaint is filed as a counter-blast to the theft case registered against the revision petitioner and that none of the witnesses examined implicated the fifth accused in the case. THE counsel also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that during the 21 days the complainant was said to be in the hospital he was unable to pursue his ordinary avocations and therefore the offence disclosed is only one under S. 323 IPC.