FAKRUDDIN Vs. STATE POLICE NIRMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition has been referred to a Bench as the question whether an order of discharge purported to be under sub-section (2) of Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be revised by the Session Judge, and whether the Sessions Court can remand the case for "further enquiry" or there can only be a proceeding by way of a "re-trail".

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are quite simple. Thirteen persons have been charge-sheeted by the Station House Officer, Nirmal Police Station, for offences under S. 382 I. P. C. They are accused of committing theft of 10 bags of beedies belonging to Mupkal beedi factory at about 5-00 p.m., on 9-3-1960 after making preparation to cause hurt and wrongful restraint. Those beedi bags were being transported in a jeep car, which was stopped when it neared a jungle and the beedies were stolen by the accused.The Munsif Magistrate, Nirmal, discharged the accused 4 to 13. The reason given is that no material was available to show how the police got the names of these ten accused. He ordered that accused 1 to 3 should be charged only under Ss. 341 and 379 I. P. C. read with S. 34 I. P. C. and tried for those offences before himself. Accusted 1 to 3 thereupon filed Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 24,25 and 26 of 1960 before the Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The State filed Cri. R. P. No. 20 of 1960 against the order of discharge of accused 4 to 13. The learned Session Judge of Adilabad held the view that a discharge under sub-section (2) of S. 251-A Cr. P. C. is virtually a dismissal of the complaint under S. 203 Cr. P. C. and allowed Cr. R. P. No. 20 of 1960 holding that there were grounds for interferences. He upheld the order of the learned Munsif-Magistrate in so far as accused 1 to 3 are concerned and dismissed Cr. R. P. Nos. 24, 25 and 26 of 1960. The present revision petition is preferred by all the thirteen accused.

(3.) It is not necessary for us to have to deal with the merits of the case; for the learned counsel for the petitioners contented with contending that the learned Sessions Judge had no power to interfere with the order of discharge falling under sub-section (2) of S. 251 of the Criminal P. C.