PILATHOTTATHIL MUHAMED ABDULLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point that arises for consideration in this Criminal Revision is whether under no circumstance can the accused be discharged Under Section 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short the Code, without taking all the evidence the complainant wants to produce. The accused in C. C No. 979 of 1978 of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Manjeri are the petitioners in this Criminal Revision, The respondent filed the criminal complaint against the petitioners Under Sections 447, 342, 324, 427 read with Section 34, Penal Code. The allegations in the complaint are ; The property, 75 cents in extent, comprised in R. Sy. 94/6 in Unniyalukkaparamba in perimbalam amsom belonging to his brother was in the possession and enjpyment of the complainant. On 9-7-1978 at about 10 a. m. when P. W. 1 the complainant was manuring his cultivation the accused trespassed into the property and Wrongfully confined him. The first accused beat him with a bamboo stick on his back. The second accused lady destroyed his lady's-finger cultivation.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate directed the complainant to produce all his witnesses, on 20-12-1978. There was no sitting on that day, and on 24-1-1979 when the case came up, the complainant and a witness present were examined. The request for adjournment of the case for the examination of two other witnesses not present on that day was rejected, the accused were questioned (they denied the entire prosecution case) and the learned Magistrate discharged the acoused Under Section 245 (1) of the Code holding that 'no case against the accused has been made out whcih if un-rebutted would warrant their conviction'.

(3.) THE respondent-complainant challenged the above order discharging the accused in revision before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge and remitted the case to the trial court for trial and disposal. It is the above order of the Sessions Judge that is challenged in this Criminal Revision.