PRABHAKARAN NAIR Vs. JOSEPH CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before me is the complainant in C. C. No. 515 of 1971 on the file of the Sub Magistrate's Court, Perumbavoor. He filed this complaint against the respondent accused alleging that the latter was driving KLK. 8505 through the Alwaye Perumbavoor road in a rash and negligent manner and that the lorry dashed against his son causing him injuries on 20-2-1970 at 10.00 A. M. The learned Sub Magistrate took the sworn statement of the complainant and examined witnesses. He states that be perused the first 'information statement and the scene mahazar in addition to the statements of witnesses at the enquiry. The learned Sub Magistrate found that there was no sufficient ground to proceed with the case and therefore dismissed the complaint under S.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against this order, the petitioner took the matter in revision before the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, and the learned District Magistrate by his order dated 10th December, 1971 confirmed the order of the lower Court and dismissed the revision petition. It is against that order that the revision is filed.

(2.) It is useful to recapitulate the facts here, which lie in a short compass. On 20-2-1970 at about 10.00 A.M. the petitioner's wife with her son aged about 8 years got down from a bus coming from Muvattupuzha to Alwaye and while they were proceeding towards west, a lorry driven by the respondent came from west and dashed against the boy causing grievous hurt to him. The Perumbavoor police registered a case as crime No. 53 of 1970, but referred the same. Whereupon, the petitioner filed a private complaint after receiving the refer notice. The complaint was filed on 8-3-1971. On that day, the learned Sub Magistrate directed the complainant to appear with witnesses on 15-3-1971. On 15-3-1971, the complainant and three other witnesses were examined and the case was posted for orders to 17-3-1971, on which date the complaint was dismissed under S.203 Cr. P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate is wrong and the order of dismissal is unjustified. The learned Sub Magistrate in addition to considering the materials placed before him by the complainant and the three witnesses looked into the first information statement and the scene mahazar and discussed the evidence of witnesses and the materials supplied by the first information report and the scene mahazar to reach his finding. What is more, be also considered the fact that the evidence of the witnesses does not tally with the blood marks on the road as seen from the scene mahazar. It was on a consideration of all these materials that he chose to dismiss the complaint under S.203 Cr. P. C. The question is whether the learned Sub Magistrate acted within the bounds of law in going beyond the materials available under S.202 enquiry to dismiss the complaint. The learned District Magistrate has also fallen in line with the Sub Magistrate.