PANCHAIAPPAN VEERAPPAN Vs. M A SIRAJUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks to set aside the order, dated 16.4.2009, passed in unnumbered calendar case of 2009 by the Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge-cunt-Judicial Magistrate at Yanam.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the private complaint preferred against the respondents for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. was straightaway dismissed by the trial Court without assigning any valid reason and submits that the learned Magistrate, at the first instance, ought to have re-corded the sworn statement of the complainant, examined the witnesses, conducted an enquiry and thereafter come to a conclusion. According to him, the order impugned does not reflect recording of sworn statement from the complainant and examination of the witnesses; thus, the same is illegal and liable to be interfered with.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor, Puducherry, has pointed out that the petitioner was transferred on administrative reasons as he was working in the same place for six years and aggrieved by the order of transfer, he preferred an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same is under challenge.