M MOHAMAD HANEEF Vs. K P NARASI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case arises out of a reference made by our learned brother, Vaidya J. in C. M. Ps. Nos. 2082, 2004 and 2006 of 1967. The point that has been referred to us is, whether the Sessions trial can be stayed pending an enquiry on the base of a private complaint. The facts necessary to appreciate the arguments on either side made briefly be stated.

(2.) A preliminary charge-sheet was filed by the Police, Nandyal in Crime No. 6 of 1967 on the file of the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Nandyal, against nine persons under Sections 148, 302 read with 34 and 149 I. P. C. with the allegation that on 7-9-1967 at about 7 a.m. while the deceased A. Dastagir Saheb, was returning with P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to their village from Nandyal after attending Second Show cinema, the accused (A-1 to A-9) waylaid and attacked the deceased at a distance of a 3 furlongs on Nandyal-Chabolu cart-track. The overt acts of the various accused were mentioned in Para 7 of the provisional charge-sheet. This provisional charge-sheet was filed on 22-9-1967. However, when the final charge-sheet was laid the case took a different turn. The names of the first four accused mentioned in the provisional charge-sheet were deleted; A-5 in the provisional charge-sheet was made an approver and it was stated that there were no eye witness in the case. Three more persons were added as accused instead of the first four persons mentioned in the provisional charge-sheet.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner herein, who figured as P. W. 1 in the provisional charge-sheet, filed a private complaint, P. R. C. No. 8 of 1967, complaining that the Police had deleted the main accused in the case and had given a different complexion to the entire case. The learned Magistrate registered the case and passed an order on 9-11-1967 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 I. P. C., against A-1 to A-4 in the complaint. In regard to others, he observed, that as cognizance had already been taken against them in P. R. C. No. 6 of 1967 and the role given to them is the same as in the complaint, it was not necessary to take cognizance of the case against them. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant went in revision to the Sessions Judge, but the Sessions Judge rejected the petition. Meanwhile, P. R. C. 6 of 1967 was committed to the Court of Session.