RAM KRIPAL Vs. KESHAV RAM TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made by the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Banda.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Deputy Regional Marketing Officer, Banda, filed a complaint against the appellant in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baberu, district Banda, for an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant under Sec. 8 of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, fixed July 11, 1967 for the recording of prosecution evidence but on that date neither the complaint nor any other prosecution witness nor the complainant's counsel was present and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the following order:

(3.) After the learned Magistrate had passed the above order the applicant was again prosecuted for the same offence in the court of the learned Magistrate 1st class and, thereupon, an application was filed on behalf of the applicant that he could not be prosecuted over again for the same offence in view of the provisions of Sec. 403, Criminal Procedure Code. On that application the learned Magistrate 1st class, on Oct. 25, 1967, passed the following order: