P S SULAIMAN Vs. EACHARA WARRIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Act 2 of 1974. Although the prayer in it is for quashing the entire proceedings in P. E. 5 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial First Class magistrate, Perambra, at the time of the hearing it was limited by counsel appearing for the petitioner, accused No. 15, to quashing the summons issued to him under S. 204 of the Code.

(2.) WHAT is submitted is that the learned Magistrate erred is proceeding under S. 204 before calling upon the first respondent, the complainant, to produce all his witnesses and examining them also as required by the proviso to S. 202 (2 ).

(3.) BY now there are several other reported decisions also on this matter. They are: The State v. Kastu Behera (Orissa) 1975 Crl L. J. 1178, Boya Lakshmanna v. Boyachinna Narasappa (Andhra Pradesh) 1976 Crl. L j. 127, Budaraju Seshagiri Rao v. T. V. Sarma (Andhra Pradesh) 1976 Crl. L. J. 902, Paranjothi Udyar v. State (Madras) 1976 Crl L J. 598, P. R. Murugaiyan v. Jayaveera Pandia Nadar (Madras) 1977 Crl. L. J. 1700 and Kamal Krishna De v. State (Calcutta) 1977 Crl. L. J 1492. Of them the decisions in The State versus kastu Behera, 1975 Crl. L. J. 1178, Boya Lekshmana v. Boyachinna Narasappa,1976 crl L. J 127 and Budaraju Seshagiri Rao v. T. V. Sarma 1976 Crl. L. J. 902 support the view taken by Janaki Amma J. in Kochu Mohammed v. State of Kerala 1977 Crl. L. J. 1867. The other decisions either take a different view or contain observations to the contrary.