SOWBAGYAM Vs. KALIAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant is the Petitioner. She filed a complaint on 21st February 1968 and she gave the sworn statement on the same day before the Sub -Magistrate, Mayuram. Her complaint was for an offence under Section 323 I.P.C. Her SWORN; statement was recorded on 21st February 1968. The case was adjourned to 4th March 1968. The Sub -Magistrate called the case for hearing on 4th March 1968 to which date the case was earlier adjourned.

(2.) IN these circumstances, Mr. Sridevan argued that under the appellate power vested in this Court the suffiolesey of the reason for the absence of the complainant -Petitioner may be "gone into and the order of acquittal may be reversed and further enquiry may be directed. The learned Counsel cited before me a number of decisions, some of which alone need merit my attention. In the Division Bench decision in Nagarambilli Tohkya v. Jagannatha : A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 1009 Devadass J. considers elaborately the position of law in the case before them and concluded in the following language:

(3.) IN view of the reasoning in this paragraph, it is not contended before me by Mr. Sridevan that the Magistrate was aware at the time he called the case of any such reason for adjourning the hearing of the case. But the facts In Periasami v. State, 1962 M. W. N. Cri. 19 have no similarity or identity with the facts of the case. Buj Sadasivara. J. sums the position very clearly. 6. In the following language while considering the above case: