NATVARLAL AMBALAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original complainant challenges the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana in Inquiry Case No.115 of 1986 passed on 30.3.1990 discharging respondent Nos.2 to 10 from the charges in the said Inquiry case arising from M Case No.49 of 1986. The petitioner is the original complainant. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.83 of 1990 before the Sessions Court, Mehsana under Section 397 of Cr PC. The Sessions Court, Mehsana Camp at Patan by judgment and order dated 3.2.1993 dismissed the said revision application and, therefore, this petition to challenge both the orders.

(2.) THE challenge to the order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was basically on the ground of not affording audience to the petitioner - the complainant/informant before passing the impugned order accepting the report on action taken by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of Cr PC. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court as reported in Bhagwant Singh V/s. Commissioner of Police and Anr., 1985 AIR(SC) 1285The revisional Court, however, did not accept the contention raised by the present petitioner by observing that the report under Section 169 of Cr PC made by the Investigating Officer, even if it is accepted without hearing the petitioner, is not likely to cause any prejudice to the complainant. Error, if any, can be rectified by resorting to Section 319 of Cr PC.

(3.) HEARD learned advocate Mr Unwala for the petitioner. He has mainly relied on the decision in the case of Bhagwant Singh and submitted that for the purposes of the complainant, the decision of the Court is final in discharging the accused persons and the petitioner - complainant would be required then to resort to and depend on the circumstances which may or may not arise for invoking Section 319 of Cr PC. If the complainant is heard before accepting the report and if the Magisterial Court finds that there is an error in making of report, it may not accept the report and may direct further investigation which would eliminate the chances of uncertainty and any prejudice being caused to the complainant/informant.