POLISETTY PADMAVATHI Vs. T MALLIKARJUNA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on record.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel Sri Padmanabha Reddy would maintain that when the l-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class of Khammam had accepted the final report and the protest petition is rejected. It would be an order falling under Section 203 or the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The learned counsel also would maintain that the matter was carried by way of Crl.R.P.No.50 of 2004, where under the Court of Session while allowing the revision straight away directed the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences and the disputed fact of putting date can be decided after full trial. The learned Senior Counsel would comment that this direction is contrary to the specific provisions of Section 398 of the Code.

(3.) On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that in the light of the language employed in Section 398 of the Code, the power is to orderfurther enquiry if need be, such straight direction cannot be issued by the Court of Session. The docket order dated 9-8-2004, passed by the l-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, reads as hereunder: