IN RE: RATHINAM AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of a Reference made by the District Magistrate, Vellore, regarding the illegal disposal of C.C. No. 131 of 1962 on the file of the Bench Court, Vellore. As many as 10 persons were charge -sheeted before the Bench Court for having played a game of chance in a public place namely Marakkadai Street, Vellore. When the case was taken up for trial, the Prosecuting Sub -Inspector of Police was not present in Court to prosecute the case nor was any prosecution witness present. All the accused were however arrayed in Court and the Court noticed some irregularity within the Court Hall. One of the Constables in mufti attached to the South Police Station, Vellore, appeared to have entered the Court Hall and asked the accused in the presence of the members of the Bench Court as to why they were denying the offence when questioned by Court. The Bench Court naturally took objection to the conduct of the Constable and warned him. The Court appears to have further suspected that there was something wrong in the prosecution case. The Court therefore acquitted the accused under Sec. 245(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The question now is whether the acquittal under the aforesaid Sec. is correct in law. Sec. 245(1) contemplates a case where, after taking the evidence and examining the accused the Court finds that the accused is not guilty. Then the Court shall record an order of acquittal. The present however was a case where no evidence had been recorded and an order of acquittal was ordered by the Bench Court on the denial of the accused and under circumstances which engendered suspicion due to the presence of the Constable in mufti. The disposal of such a case cannot come under Sec. 245(1), Criminal Procedure Code. It should more appropriately come under Sec. 247, Criminal Procedure Code, which contemplates a case where the complainant as in the present case does not appear. Under this Sec. the Magistrate is entitled to acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. In this case there is no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal which appears to be correct. The Sec. under which the order was passed by the Bench Court is 245(1), Criminal Procedure Code and not 247, Criminal Procedure Code. The order of acquittal has therefore to be under Sec. 247, Criminal Procedure Code, in the circumstances stated above and will be modified accordingly. To this extent the Reference is accepted.