FATUMAL DAYARAM Vs. RAEL SAMSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by the original complainant against certain orders passed by the City Magistrate 7 Court Ahmedabad (Mr. N. M. Chhaya) on 24-6-1968 in respect of a complaint under sec. 323 I.P.C. filed before him against respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the State of Gujarat.

(2.) The facts in brief are these. The applicant Fatumal Dayaram who will be referred to hereafter as the complainant for the sake of convenience has two children who are attending the school of which respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of brevity) is the principal. It appears that 14th of February 1968 was the birth date of the respondent and the allegation of the complainant was that for the purpose of celebrating that birth date the class teachers asked their students to bring each not less than Rs. 2/as contribution. The complainant alleged that he sent Rs. 2/with each of his two children but this was not accepted and the class teacher insisted on a payment of Rs. 5/from each of the students. The children reported this to the complainant and on the next day he accompanied the children to the school saw the respondent and protested against such demands and left. His allegation was that thereafter his children complained to him that the class teachers had taken them before the respondent and both of them had been beaten by the respondent. He went on to say that on learning this he again went to the respondent and protested against this conduct of hers but was told that he may remove his children from that school. On these allegations he alleged that an offence under sec. 323 I.P.C. had been committed by the respondent.

(3.) The complaint was filed on 6-2-1968. It therefore appears that the alleged demand for money took place before the date of the filing of the complaint much before the birth date of the respondent. The complainant does not indicate the date of the demand the date of the protest or the date on which the alleged beating was given to his children. The learned Magistrate on receipt of this complainant issued process (bailable warrant). The respondent appeared on the date fixed and the matter was adjourned from time to time and then it was fixed for evidence on the 24 of June 1968. On the date when the matter was called out the complainant and his advocate were not present but the respondent and her advocate were present. The learned Magistrate passed an order below the complaint recording that the complainant was not present and further that the complaint be dismissed. If appears that the complainant appeared before the Court within a short time thereafter and moved the Court by an application which is Annexure A to this petition in which he stated that he had gone to call his advocate and that in his absence the case came to be called out and that was why he was not present and requested the Court that the case be taken on the file. On that application the learned Magistrate stated that he having dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused could not set aside the order of acquittal. Accordingly the application was rejected. This revision application relates to those orders passed by the learned Magistrate.