MD IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in STC No. 134 of 2004 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District.

(2.) On the basis of a common report made by the petitioners to him, the SI of Police, Town PS, Bheemavaram, registered a case in Cr.No.219 of 2000 under Sections 420, 384, 506(2) Indian Penal Code and after investigation, laid charge-sheet against one Cheerala Venkatarathana Reddy, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.47 of 2001 by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemavaram. Petitioners, who were cited as PWs.l to 7, in the said CC No. 47 of 2001, did not support the prosecution case, and were treated as hostile witnesses and denied their having made statements as in Ex.P.2 to P.6 recorded by the police under Sec. 161 Code Criminal Procedure Learned Magistrate while disposing of the said C.C. observed as under:

(3.) The contention of Sri. E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since no show-cause notice as mandated by Sec. 344(1) Cr.PC, was issued by the learned Magistrate to the petitioners, proceedings in STC No. 134 of 2004 against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. It is also his contention that since principles of natural justice that a complainant should not be a Judge on his complaint, would be violated if the same Magistrate who passed the order takes cognizance of the offence complained of by him, the learned Magistrate in fairness to the petitioners should have lodged the complaint before another Magistrate or should have followed the procedure prescribed by Sec. 195(1 )(b)(4) Code Criminal Procedure In support of his contentions, he relied on Pydi Laxmanna Vs. Dupala Krishnamurthy, AIR 1969 AP 415; Gottimukkala Surayanarayana Raju Vs. State, 1986 Crl. APLJ 325 and Md. Ibrahim Vs. B. Ramarao, AIR 1976 SC 822. His next contention is that since the statements under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, are neither made on oath nor are signed by the witnesses, and can be used only for contradictions as per Sec. 162 Cr PC, the learned Magistrate was in error in launching prosecution against the petitioners on the premise that those statements, are true, and relied on Janardhanan Vs. State of Kerala, ILR 1978(2) Kerala 188, in support of the said contention.