BECHAN LAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the learned ADM (J) directing the accused to re -appear in the Court of the Magistrate after setting aside the order of the subordinate Magistrate passed Under Sec. 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction appears to b £ unsustainable in law. The Applicants who were accused in a case Under Sec. 7 of the Untouchability Act and who were being tried before a Magistrate were released by the order, of the Magistrate and the proceedings were stopped without pronouncing any judgment either of acquittal or conviction. Against this order of the Magistrate the State filed revision before the ADM (J) who took the view that the order Under Sec. 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only meant temporary stay of proceedings in the court below and they could be revived at any stage, hence he directed the accused to re -appear before the Magistrate on a particular date.

(2.) The question that arises for determination in this revision is whether the learned ADM (J) had the power in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction to direct the accused to appear before the subordinate Magistrate to undergo trial. The only Sec. under which the ADM (J) could have ordered further enquiry or holding of further trial was Sec. 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but that confines itself to an order of dismissal of complaint or order of discharge. The order in the instant case was neither an order dismissing a complaint nor an order discharging the accused. The only power, therefore, which the learned ADM (J) could exercise would be available Under Sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by sending up a reference to the High Court. The learned ADM (J) himself could not have passed any final order. Thus the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

(3.) Accordingly I allow this application in revision, set aside the impugned order of the learned ADM (J).