K GOPALA PANICKER Vs. KUMARAN KESAVAN NEDIYAPLANKALAVILA VEEDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the complainant in Calendar Case 377 of 1964 is to set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Neyyattinkara discharging the accused (respondents 1 to 10) under S.253(2) on the ground that the charge was groundless. All the respondents except the fourth respondent were served with notice in this revision petition. In spite of various attempts the fourth respondent could not be served and so the case against him was split up and separately numbered as Crl. R. P. 3/66. So this order is only in respect of respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 10.

(2.) The case against the accused was under S.148 and S.447 and 427 read with S.149 I. P. C., in that they trespassed into the property which had been delivered over to pw. 1 through the civil court. All the accused except accused 3 and 4 appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, but the whereabouts of accused 3 and 4 were not known and summons could not be served on them. Thereupon the complainant was asked to furnish their correct address by 18 1 65, but on that day when the case was called on for hearing the complainant was absent and the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order. The legality of the order is questioned in this revision.

(3.) It is the warrant case procedure that applies to this case. An offence under S.148 is cognisable and non compoundable. The procedure for such trials is contained is Chap.21. S.252(2) Crl. P. C. requires the Magistrate to: