KENNADY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both the parties, the revision as well as the miscellaneous petition were heard and disposed of by delivering this common order on merits.

(2.) The challenge in this revision is against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate; Devakottai in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 585/96 dated 15-3-1996, which was the very result of a memo filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II before the trial Court dated 15-3-1996 as stated hereunder :"

(3.) While challenging the legal sanctity and propriety of the impugned order, Mr. Rajeswaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner dwell his attack firstly that the impugned order was a non-speaking one and that secondly the said order was passed not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of sub-clause (8) of S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that thirdly while passing the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate has not at all applied his mind to the factual aspects of the case, which do not implicate the accused with reference to their specific overt acts by all the witnesses and the materials placed by the Investigating Agency and that lastly, the learned counsel contended that the settled principles of law in a case of similar crime held by the higher Courts have been clearly overlooked in this case and that for all the said reasoning, the impugned order is to be declared as vitiated as it lacks the legality and propriety.