STATE Vs. THANKAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first of these references is in C. C. No. 410 of 1971, the next in C. C. No. 951 of 1971 and the last in C. C. No. 126 of 1972, of the Sub Magistrate's Court, Neyyattinkara - II. C. C. No. 410 of 1971 is in respect of charges under S.279, I. P. C., C. C. No. 951 of 1971 for charges under S.434 read with S.34 IPC. and C. C. No. 126 of 1972 in respect of charges under S.447 and 379 IPC. read with S.34 IPC., C. C. No. 410 of 1971 came up for hearing before the Magistrate on 8-5-1972 and the Magistrate acquitted the accused as the complainant was absent, under S.247 Crl. PC. Similarly in C. C. No. 951 of 1971. the accused was acquitted under S.247 Cr.P.C. on 30 1 71 and in C. C. No. 126 of 1972 the accused was acquitted under the same section on 27 5 1972.

(2.) The common ground raised before me in all these cases is that the acquittal of the accused under S.247 Cr. PC. when the charge is laid by the police is not correct on account of the absence of the complainant S.247 Cr. PC., it is contended, can be invoked only in cases when the proceedings are started on a complaint which is defined under S.4(1)(b) Cr. PC. The District Magistrate, Trivandrum made these references to this Court to set aside the acquittal orders as they are found to be illegal.

(3.) We have to examine each of these cases separately as they deal with different aspects on the question of fact as well as law.