GULAM AHMED BAGAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal is preferred by the original complainant of Criminal Case No. 1086/2007 filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jambusar for acquitting the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being accused of the said Criminal Case for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) THE brief fact of the present case reveals that the present appellant, original complainant perhaps, on direction of the police presented himself before the Jambusar Police Station on 13. 04. 1987 at about 8. 00 a. m. One Valibhai of Jambusar cousin brother of the complainant had accompanied him. In absence of Police Sub Inspector, Jambusar Police Station, both of them waited till 10. 00 a. m. and, thereafter, the complainant was called by respondent No. 3 in his Chamber at Police Station. As soon as the complainant and Valibhai entered the Chamber of respondent No. 2 PSI and No. 3, who was also PSI, both started beating the complainant and Valibhai with genda stick. The present appellant complainant was seriously injured and Valibhai was asked to go away from there. The present appellant being accused in the crime was arrested in connection with C. R. No. I-19/1987 registered with Jambusar Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The said complaint was lodged by one resident of Khanpur and thereafter, the complainant appellant herein was remained in the police custody. According to the case of the complainant, he was beaten during night hours also by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. The threat allegedly administered by respondent No. 3 to the complainant that if any complaint is made about ill-treatment to anybody, he would be again arrested and would be beaten. The appellant was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jambusar on next day morning i. e. on 14. 04. 1997. On inquiring by the learned Magistrate, the appellant made a complaint about ill-treatment by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore, the learned Magistrate forwarded the complainant, appellant herein to the Medical Officer for examination. After examining, Medical Officer, Jambusar forwarded the complainant, appellant herein to SSG Hospital, Vadodara. According to the complainant, both the Medical Officers of Jambusar as well as Vadodara forwarded their certificates to the learned Magistrate and subsequently, by his order dated 12. 05. 1987, learned Magistrate suo moto took the cognizance of offence and directed to issue summons to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. According to the complainant, he attended the said Court numbers of time and presented himself before the Court. But, however, ultimately, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint being Criminal Case No. 1086/1987 vide impugned order dated 27. 05. 1996 and acquitted the accused, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, this appeal by the original complainant by obtaining leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) IT appears that this Court admitted the appeal after granting leave to appeal on 17. 10. 1996. It appears that, appeal might have been notified before the Hon'ble Single Judge and on 13. 06. 2006, this Court passed an order that the learned counsel Mr. Keshwani submitted a pursis before this Court seeking permission to withdraw his appearance in this matter, as the complainant had taken away papers from him. The said pursis was taken on record and learned counsel Mr. Keswani for the appellant complainant was permitted to retire. This Court also directed to issue notice to the appellant complainant. In the board today, an endorsement of the office shows that notice is served upon the appellant, but even after the repeated call outs, nobody is present on behalf of the appellant.