PULAGAM VENKATAREDDI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint at the SR stage after recording the sworn statements of PWs.1 and 2. The complaint allegations are that the complainant is absolute owner of vehicle bearing No.AP 31 N 3250 having purchased the same from one Karri Srinvas Reddy and on 23-9-1999, the accused 1 and 2 trespassed into his house and took away the motor-cycle stealthily with cash of Rs.50,000/- and Raybon Spectacles worth about Rs.2,300/- which are kept in the vehicle. Though a telegraphic report was given to the SHO Anaparthy and Inspector of police of Anaparthy, subsequently, a written complaint was also given, as the police have not chosen to file any charge sheet, a private complaint was also filed.

(2.) The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statements of PWs.1 and 2 has dismissed the complaint under Section 203. A perusal of the order of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramchandrapuram, makes it clear that the learned Judicial Magistrate has conducted a full fledged enquiry in coming to the conclusion that no offence is made out, which in my considered view is wrong, as held by the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1894, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

(3.) At the stage of recording the sworn statements, what is to be seen is as to whether the witness examined on the basis of the complainant is speaking to the facts narrated in the complaint. But in the instant case, the learned Magistrate at paragraph No.10 of the judgments has gone into the fact as to whether the motorcycle bearing No.AP No.31 N 3250 is purchased by the complainant or not etc. I do not think, it is permissible under law.