PATEL DASHRATHLAL KASHIRAMDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Patan dated 27/09/2010 below Exh. 1 in Criminal Case No. 1215/2009 by which the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has discharged the accused in absence of the original complainant and/or his advocate.

(2.) SHRI Tejas Satta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original complainant has vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate has materially erred in discharging the accused without trial and in absence of the complainant under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that powers under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the learned Magistrate only in a case where the proceedings have been initiated upon a complainant and the offence alleged is not a cognizable offence. It is submitted that in the present case as such the offence alleged was for cognizable offence and, therefore, it is submitted that the learned Magistrate has wrongly exercised the powers under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Revision Application and remand the matter to the learned trial Court.

(3.) MS . C.M. Shah, learned APP has supported the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant by submitting that the learned Magistrate has materially erred in exercising the powers under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, has requested to pass an appropriate order.