PENUMATCHA LAKSHMI NARAYANARAJU Vs. PADALA CHELLAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is before us having been referred to a Bench by our learned brother, Jagan mohan Reddy, J.

(2.) The relevant facts to be noticed are : In C. C. No. 353/59 on the file of the Principal Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tanuku, seven accused were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323, I. P. C. On 12-3-1959 the learned Magistrate discharged accused 4 to 7 under: Section 251-A (2), Cr. P. C. as, in his opinion, the charge against them is groundless; and the trial proceeded against the other accused viz., accused 1 to 3. The complainant filed a revision application tinder Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against this order of discharge and it was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru. It was urged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, who discharged the accused, did not assign in support of the order any reasons and that therefore the order of discharge was liable to be set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on an examination of the statements recorded separately by the Sub Inspector and the Circle Inspector under Section 162, Cr. P. C. found that accused 4 to 7 were implicated only in the statements given before the Circle Inspector while nothing incriminating against these accused was stated before the Sub Inspector and the statements of some of the witnesses were conflicting, and therefore felt that there was justification for the order of discharge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that no reasons need be given for discharging the accused under Section 251-A (2), Cr. P. C. He further sought to rely upon the decision of Govind Menon, J. reported in Re Jayaraman, ILR (1949) Mad 137 : (1948) 1 Mad LJ 341 ; (AIR 1949 Mad 66), for holding that the proper time when the propriety of the order of discharge could be agitated in revision is only after the court of enquiry or trial has finally disposed of the matter and that therefore the revision petition was not maintainable. As against this dismissal of the revision petition, the complainant preferred to this court a further revision application which is now before us.

(3.) The questions referred to the Bench are the following : 1. Whether a revision lies against an order of discharge made by the Magistrate in respect of some accused pending final disposal of the case; and 2. Whether it is not necessary for the Magistrate while discharging the accused to give reasons therefor under Section 251-A (2), Cr. P. C.