SANTOSH MAHADEO TALAK Vs. BABAL ANANT POROBO DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code gives rise to is whether a case under a private complaint initiated under the procedure laid down for warrant cases, can, at a later stage be converted into a summons case and disposed of in accordance with the provisions relating to the latter cases.

(2.) THE first respondent filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Sangumem against the petitioners for offences punishable under sections 447, 379 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the complainant as brought in his complaint is that on 17th July, 1975, at about 11. 30 a. m. the petitioners tresspassed into the property Pedepodavoril Xir bearing the matrix No. 239, which is in possession and enjoyment of the complainant, thereafter took away 50 cocanuts therefrom. They also caused injuries to the complainant. The learned Magistrate issued process under sections 447,323 and 392 read with section 34 IPC by his order dated 19th July, 1975. Thereafter, inquiry was held and finally charge was framed against the petitioners only under section 323 read with section 34, I. P. C. Trial of the matter was fixed and after several adjournments, the 18th June, 1987 was given as the date for the cross-examination of the complainant and of his witnesses after the charge. However, on that occasion the complainant was absent and therefore, by his order dated 18th June, 1987, the learned Magistrate dismissed the case for want of prosecution and acquitted the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the complainant moved the Sessions Court Margao, in a revision application. This application was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 15th October, 1987. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application and therefore, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 18th June, 1987. It is against aforesaid judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge that this petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. is directed.

(3.) MR. BORKAR, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends before me that learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in dealing with the revision application, since a revision does not lie against an order of acquittal. He submits that after inquiry, a charge was framed against the petitioners only for offences punishable under Section 323, I. P. C. and therefore, the trial of a case under such offences has to follow the summons proceeding. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate First Case, passed his order under section 256, Cr. P. C. The learned Additional sessions Judge could not therefore, have interfered with the said order in a revision application holding that the order was passed under section 249 Cr. P. C. This finding of the learned Judge is manifestly erroneous, as the order was not passed prior to the framing of the charge, but only after the charge was framed.