NATESA NAICKER Vs. MARI GRAMANI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to revise the order of acquittal passed by the Stationary Sub -Magistrate of Chingleput in C.C. No. 2470 of 1946 on his file under Section 247 pf the Code of Criminal Procedure. That case arose upon a complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent alleging the commission of offences by the respondents under Sections 447 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was posted first and heard on 6th December, 1946. After the examination of the complainant, it was adjourned to 16th December, 1946, for further evidence. On that day when the case was called, the complainant was not present either in person or by pleader and consequently the Sub -Magistrate acting under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, acquitted the respondent - accused.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed by the petitioner in this Court in this case, it is alleged that on that day he and his witnesses were present in Court from 10 a.m., that just before the case was called, the advocate appearing for the accused called him and asked him to fetch his vakil as the case was about to be called, that he immediately went to the Civil Court where his advocate was engaged and brought him before the Magistrate's Court within a five minutes, but in the meantime the case had been called and the respondent had been acquitted. This version has been supported in the affidavits of the Village Munsiff and of another person who is said to have been present for being examined as a witness by the complainant in his case. These allegations have, however, been refuted by the respondent in his affidavit, in which. he says that none of the witnesses were present, that the case was called at 1 p.m., and until then nobody had turned up, that the complainant gave up the case as he considered it futile to adduce any evidence. It is scarcely necessary to go into the merits of these averments as the legal position as to the applicability of Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the facts that transpired, is perfectly clear and free from doubt. Section 247 provides

(3.) CONSIDERING the argument about hardship, which has also been repeated in this case, the learned Judges observed that the hardship that may be caused to complainant in construing the section cannot be considered, as no forced construction can be given to the very clear words of the section. This decision has been followed in a number of cases decided by single Judges, but it is not necessary to cite them. I must hold, following the Bench decision, that the order of the Sub -Magistrate is perfectly legal and competent and cannot be interfered with in revision.