DEEP NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST has been revised. None appears for the revisionists. Heard Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.GA. and perused the material on record. It appears that on the report of opposite party No. 2 (Kedar Nath Dube), investigation of case under Sections 147, 148, 342 and 352, l.P.C, was taken up by the police authority. A final report was submitted which was rejected by the trial court and cognizance was taken and accused were summoned. On 19.1.1983 the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order stating that complainant Kedar Nath Dube is absent. Police had submitted a final report, yet the revisionist was summoned. The complainant had not given any evidence under Section 244, Cr. P.C., hence the accused was acquitted of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 342 and 352, l.P.C. The complainant filed a revision before Sessions Judge, Deoria which was heard and disposed of by the Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 13.3.1984 and he remanded the case back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria for disposal in accordance with law.

(2.) THE judgment and order of the revisional court is challenged on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge interfered with the finding of fact and thus exceeded his jurisdiction, that the accused could be discharged under Section 245, Cr. P.C., if Magistrate is satisfied that no case is made out and the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.