PENTAKOTA LATCHANNA AND ANR. Vs. VUGGINNA KANNAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were first indicted under Sections 426 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code and the summons procedure was followed upto a certain stage. Subsequently the trying Magistrate felt that the evidence disclosed offences under Sections 379 and 352 of the Code and decided to adopt the warrant case procedure. It is admitted that thereafter the provisions of Chapter XXI were duly followed and ultimately the petitioners were convicted under Sections 379 and 352 of the Code. Objection was taken to this course and it was pointed out that under Sections 244 and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate was bound, at the stage when he attempted to convert the summons case into a warrant case when he found that no case had been made out under Sections 426 Indian Penal Code, to acquit the accused and he was not entitled to register a case under Section 379 and proceed under Chapter XXI. With regard to this contention at one time it found acceptance in this Court. In Rajaratnam Pillai, In re : (1936)70MLJ340 Kins J said this:

(2.) ON the merits, there is hardly anything to consider. The learned Joint Magistrate has found that the removal of the crop was not with a view to establish a right or supposed right and the trial Court has found that the removal was done with a dishonest intention. An offence under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code has also been made out.