RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. BALACHANDRAN EZHUTHASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner lodged a. complaint before the Second Class Magistrate, Trichur, against the respondent, the Head Constable of Valappad Police Station alleging offences under S.323, 324, 218 and 220 I.P.C. The allegations were that on 17th February 1960, the respondent arrested the complainant in connection with a case filed against him by one Velayi and one Soman, took him to the police station and beat him up. Some arrack was thrown on him and a false case under the Prohibition Act was charged against him. It is further alleged that to explain the injuries caused to the complainant as a result of the manhandling, the Head Constable forced him to sign a false complaint against Velayi and Soman charging them of having caused hurt to him.

(2.) The case was enquired into by the Second Class Magistrate, Trichur, who after examining a number of witnesses on both sides, framed charges against the Head Constable under S.323 and 218 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate then examined the Munsiff Magistrate, Chowghat, before whom the complainant had been taken by the Police in connection with the remand application. The testimony of this witness appears to have convinced the learned Magistrate that there was no case for committal to the Sessions Court and thereupon the charges framed were cancelled and the accused discharged. Aggrieved by this order the complainant took the matter up in revision before the District Magistrate, Trichur who refused to interfere, with the lower court's order.

(3.) The main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate cancelled the charge without sufficient jurisdiction and assessed the evidence before him as if he were trying the case and not with the view of ascertaining whether a prima facie case has been made out to commit the accused to stand his trial before the Sessions Court and as such he exceeded his jurisdiction. I must say that I am inclined to agree with this argument.