PENUMATCHA CHINA HANUMANTHARAJU Vs. MARISETTI RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub-Magistrate discharging five of the seven accused.

(2.) The facts that gave rise to the revision may be briefly stated. The petitioner filed a complaint against seven accused under section 427, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the said accused damaged and destroyed cocoanut seedlings which he had planted along the Rameswaram Channel bund between mile 1/5 and 1/7, and caused damage to him. The learned Sub-Magistrate, after recording evidence, discharged the five respondents under section 253, Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant preferred a revision to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate mainly relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in In re Jayaraman, (1948) 1 M.L.J. 341: I.L.R. 1949 Mad. 137. dismissed it on the ground that a revision does not lie against a discharge order pending final disposal of the case. Hence, the revision. The short question in this revision is whether a revision lies against the discharge order made by the Magistrate in respect of some accused pending final disposal of the case. Govinda Menon, J., in In re Jayaraman considered this question and made the following observations at page 138 :

(3.) Later on, the learned Judge proceeded to state :