BISHNATH AND 2 OTHERS Vs. STATE THROUGH BANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Bishwanath, Parasnath and Bam Nihal, against whom Bansi had filed a complaint, charging them with offences punishable under Sections 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint, recorded the statements of the complainant, the Medical Officer and one more witness. Thereafter. he found that there was no case under Section 307, I.P.C. and that it Was at the most a case under Section 323, I. P.C. "which is tribal, exclusively by a Panchayati Adalat". 'Accordingly, he directed, that the file be sent to the Tahsildar, Basti, so that he might transfer the case to the Panchayati Adalat having jurisdiction over the matter.

(2.) Against the Magistrate's order, the complainant filed a revision in the court of the District* Magistrate of Baati, who was . of opinion that, even if there was no case under Section 307. I. P. O, it was a "pretty difficult case under Section 323, I. P,C, and the Panchayati Adalat can not inflict proper sentence in cases like this". He, therefore, allowed the revision and remanded the case to the Magistrate concerned "for further enquiry and trial according to law". He also directed that the Magistrate should record the entire evidence and then find whether it was a case under Sections 323 and 307, I.P.C. ; and that even if it be a case under Section 323, I. P. C" he should try the same.

(3.) In this revision, in the first place, it has been argued on behalf of the applicants that the District Magistrate was, no doubt, entitled to call for and examine the record of this case, under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but he acted illegally in remanding the case for further enquiry. In my opinion, there is considerable force in this argument. The learned District Magistrate having called for examination the record, under Section 435 of the Code, after examining the same, under Section 436 of the Code he could direct any subordinate Magistrate to make further enquiry into any complaint which had bean dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-section (3) of Section 304, or into the case of any person accused of the offence, who had been discharged, after allowing him, an opportunity of showing cause why such direction be not made. That being not the case, ha could make no such direction in the present case The District Magistrate might have acted under Sections 437 or 433 of the Code ; but he did not. There is no other provision in the Code under which the District Magistrate might have exercised revisional powers, which he purports to have done.