D H EDWARDS Vs. PREM MASIH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, who happened to be the complainant, has come forward with a prayer that the order dated 23rd August, 1980, passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 1269 of 1980 and the order dated 11-12-1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 75 of 3980 be both quashed and the Magistrate may be directed to decide the case on merits after recording further evidence.

(2.) IT would appear that a complaint was filed by the applicant against the opposite parties under Sections 454, 380 and 406, IPC, and the accused persons concerned were summoned under title former two sections. 23rd August, 1980, was fixed for evidence under Section 244, CrPC when the case was called the complainant and his counsel were both absent and the Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of evidence. The revisional court held that actually the dismissal was under Section 256, CrPC, amounting to acquittal.IT further rejected the complainant's contention that the complaint could not have been dismissed in the early hours and the revision was thus, rejected.

(3.) THAT section deals with summons cases. In fact, in such cases the order of discharge is to operate as an order of acquittal, which will not be the position with warrant case, where if orders are passed before charge is framed it will simply amount to an order of discharge and will not operate as an order of acquittal. I, therefore, hold that the Sessions Judge hearing the revision is wrong in holding that the order passed by the Magistrate is covered under Section 256, CrPC.