MUNUSWAMY NAIDU Vs. PULLAMMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 21-5-1980 passed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Srikalahasti in an unnumbered Criminal Case of 1980.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed a private complaint before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Srikalahasti, which was registered as C.C. No. 4 of 19SO under Sections 147, 447 and 427 I.P.C. As the complainant was absent on 15-5-1980 to which date the case was posted for trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused applying the provisions of Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner herein again filed a second complaint against the very same accused in the same court for the same offences viz., under Sections 147, 447 and 427 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that since the accused in the previous C C. No. 4 of 1980 was acquitted on the ground that tha complainant was absent on 15-5-1980, a fresh complaint against the same accused for the same offences cannot lie under Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved with the said order, this revision petition is filed.

(3.) Sri O. Adinarayana Reddy contends that the explanation to Section 300 Cr.P C. says that the dismissal of a complaint is not an acquittal for the purpose of the provisions of Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C., and hence the learned Magistrate committed illegality in holding that fresh complaint is barred by Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C., if the previous complaint was dismis on the ground that the complaintant was absent.