SHANMUGHAM Vs. KRISHNA RAMASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is by the complainant and is directed against the order of the Additional Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Erode dismissing his complaint under Sec. 204(4), Cr.P.C. preferred against the respondents herein for an offence under Sec.379, I.P.C.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present revision briefly are as follows: The petitioner presented a private complaint before the above Court against the respondents for an offence under Sec.379, I.P.C alleging that on 23.3.1983 they committed theft of 6 H.P. oil engine bearing No.256 kept in his premises. After the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded the complaint was taken on file on 2.12.1983, as against all the respondents for an offence under Sec.379, I.P.C, and posted to 16.12.83 for appearance of the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents had entered appearance and the case had undergone some adjournments. P.Ws.1 to 3 had been examined on behalf of the petitioner and their cross-examination has been deferred Finally the case was adjourned for examination of the Sub Inspector of Police and the petitioner was directed to pay the process fees for issuing necessary summons to the above witness. The petitioner failed to pay the process fees and the case was again adjourned to 12.7.1984, for the same purpose. Since the petitioner failed to pay the process fees, summons were not issued and the case was posted finally to 21.7.1984 for which date also the petitioner failed to pay the process fees On 21.7.1984, the trial Court passed the impugned order under Sec.204(4), Cr.P.C, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the process fees for issuing summons to the Sub Inspector of Police and that there was no justification for further adjournment. The present revision is directed against the above order of dismissal under Sec.204(4), Cr.P.C.

(3.) Thiru K.N.Basha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should not have been called upon to pay process fees since the Criminal Rules of Practice made it clear that in a case under Sec.379, I.P.C, the criminal Court had to meet the expenses of the witnesses for the complainant and that, therefore, the trial Court was wrong in insisting upon the payment of the process fees for issuing summons to the Sub Inspector of Police. Learned counsel also submitted that Sec. 204(4), Cr.P.C. could not be invoked since the respondents/accused had already entered appearance and that thereafter the provisions of Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C., alone would apply and the Court below could only discharge the respondents for reasons to be recorded, if there was no evidence against them, which, if unrebutted, would warrant their conviction. The dismissal under Sec. 204(4) Cr.P.C, therefore was not proper.