LAWS(APH)-1964-7-45

SIMMA NARASIMHULU Vs. STATE

Decided On July 30, 1964
SIMMA NARASIMHULU Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that a complaint was filed before the Judicial Second Clause Magistrate, Tekkali, previous to the present complaint on the same facts. The learned Magistrate made an order under section 156, Criminal Procedure Code, directing the police to investigate into the matter. It appears a report was also submitted to the Magistrate and was referred to the complainant as false. Before the Magistrate took any action on that complaint the present complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant, and on its basis he refused to take the case on file with regard to A-1 to A-4 while the process was issued against the other accused mentioned therein. Against this order, a revision petition was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed the same. The complainant has now come up in revision before this Court being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) The main point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the witnesses for the complainant were present at the time and it was incumbent on the Magistrate to have at least asked the complainant if he had any witnesses present in the Court. Under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, should have asked the complainant if he had any witnesses present in the Court. It does not appear from his order that the complainant either was required to examine his witnesses or was even asked if any of his witnesses were present and the Magistrate does not appear to have taken into consideration the report that was submitted by the police in the previous case. I think this is a departure from the procedure and the Magistrate should comply with the prescribed procedure.

(3.) This revision case is, therefore, allowed and in the light of the observations made above, the Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. Revision allowed; Magistrate to dispose of the case according to law.