NAG DAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision against the order dated 2nd December, 1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehari Garhwal in Criminal Revision No.- 27 of 1983 allowing the revision filed by the opposite-party No. 2 and modifying the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehari Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 364 of 1983. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

(2.) The complainant had made a complaint against as many as 14 persons. The evidence is the same against all of them. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned has, however, summoned only 1 to 8, out of 14 persons. He has not summoned 9 to 14 persons/accused, who are revisionists in the present revision. This indicates that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned has implidely dismissed the complaint against those revisionists. Section 203 Cr. P.C. reads as under:

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not recorded any reason for implidely dismissing the complaint or for not summoning the revisionists and, therefore, he has not followed the mandatory provisions of the aforesaid Section 203 Cr. P.C. in passing the order dated 3rd October, 1983.