E M BARNETT Vs. L N THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by one E. M. Barnett, Guard on the Western Railway, for revision of the order passed by Shri R. D. Gour, District Magistrate, Nimar, refusing to refer the case to the High Court for quashing the order of the Magistrate who declined to permit the compounding of this case between the aforesaid Barnett and one L. N, Thakkar, another guard.

(2.) IT appears that the two guards quarrelled among themselves and Barnett hit Thakkar a blow on the face, which caused one of his teeth to fall out. The complainant and the ac cased after the case had gone on for some time put in an application on 13-2-1954 seeking the permission of the Court to compound the offence. The Nagar Nyaya Panchayat, Second Class, Khandwa, before which the case was pending, ordered that a memo be sent to the District Superintendent of Police, Nimar, asking him whether he had any objection to the offence being compounded. After adjourning the case to suit the convenience of the District Superintendent of Po lice, the final order was made on 18-3-1954. On that date the District Police Prosecutor appeared and said that the District Superintendent of Police had objection to the compounding of the case. The Court then ordered that since the District Superintendent of Police objected to the compounding of the case and since the offence was committed in a public place permission to compound was refused. Against this order a revision was filed before Shri R. D. Gour, District Magistrate, who declined to refer the case to the High Court, as stated above.

(3.) BEFORE the learned District Magistrate a ruling of this Court reported in - 'pratap Singh v. Emperor' AIR 1937 Nag 114 (A) was cited. This is mentioned in the order as well. The learned District Magistrate observed that this ruling did not help the applicant in any way. He was of opinion that all that the Nagar Nyaya Panchayat did was to hear the District Police Prosecutor and to disallow the request for compounding of the ease for reasons which it had given itself. He considered that the mere mention of the name of the District Superintendent of Police by the lower Court had not in any way prejudiced the case of the applicant as the Court reached a decision on its own after hearing the applicant fully.