S RENGASWAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE nine petitioners in this revision case are accused 1 to 9 in C. C. 25 of 1961 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar. They were charge-sheeted before the Sub Magistrate, Virudhunagar, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 426 and 447, Indian Penal Code. But after recording the evidence of P. W. 1, the Sub Magistrate found that an offence Under Section 148, indian Penal Code had also been disclosed against them. He, there-, fore, submitted the records, Under Section 346, Cri. P. C. to the District Magistrate who, in turn, transferred the case to the Additional first Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar. The latter took the case on file; but he found that, since the first accused was the president of the Panchayat Board, the prosecution was not maintainable in the absence of sanction Under Section 106 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, X of 1950. On this finding he struck out the charges framed by the Sub Magistrate and discharged the accused Under Section 251-A (2), Crl. P. C. The complainant, P. W. 1, then filed a revision petition out of which this revision arises Under Sections 435 and 436, Crl. P. C. to set aside the order of discharge. The learned District magistrate, Ramanathapuram, allowed the petition, set aside the order of discharge and directed the Additional First Class Magistrate to take the case on file and dispose it off according to law.

(2.) THE question for consideration is whether the order setting aside the discharge under Section 251-A (2), Crl. P. C. and directing disposal of the case is liable to be interfered with.

(3.) I may at once state, that, for the moment I am not so much concerned with the merits of the prosecution case. I am more concerned with the question whether the order passed by the learned District Magistrate setting aside the order of discharge is liable t0 objection.