LAWS(ALL)-1981-1-39

SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. STATE

Decided On January 16, 1981
SUBHASH CHANDRA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO cross cases were pending before Munsif Magistrate, Kannauj relating to an occurrence of 27-9-1971. The earlier was a State case instituted through a police challan. This was against seven accused including one lady Uma Devi the allegations being that armed with lathis and sticks, these persons had pushed complainant's brother and nephew inside the shop and ran away after locking the shop from outside. The offence charged was u/Secs. 147/342 IPC. The cross case was a (complaint filed by Uma Devi u/Sec. 394 IPC. The Magistrate Ali Ahmad Samdani heard evidence in both the cases and per judgment dated 21-7-79 acquitted the accused in the 394 IPC case. On the same day in the State case also he passed an order "I have perused material on record carefully. The accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. They are acquitted after giving benefit of doubt. Judgment shall be delivered later on". It appears this detailed judgment never came to be delivered.

(2.) THE Sessions Judge in the course of his administrative inspection happened to notice these two records and the incomplete order in the State case. THErefore, after issuing notice to the parlies, he exercised his suo-moto revisional jurisdiction and per order dated 30-9-80 held that the operative part of judgment of Sri Samdani was bad and no judgment in the eye of law. He relied upon Pitam v. State, 1980 ACrR 211. Having held this the learned Judge went on to observe that cross-cases have to be decided by the same judge and on the same day and, therefore, the judgment in the cross-case had also to be set aside as lacking in propriety. Accordingly he set aside both the judgments and remanded the cases to Munsif/Magistrate for decision in accordance with law. THE accused in the complaint case have filed this revision. THE learned counsel on behalf of the complainant respondent Uma Devi who incidently is also one of the accused in the cross-case has supported the revision but contended that the Magistrate's order albeit brief and cryptic with regard to Uma Devi and her co-accused should be also maintained especially when the matter is a trivial one and the occurrence is of 1971.

(3.) THE revision is allowed. THE order of the Sessions Judge dated 30-9- 1980 is quashed. In both the cases the order of the Magistrate shall stand. --- Revision allowed,,