KHASIM BEG Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this revision against the ordar dated 19-9-1978 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Anantapur in Crl.A.No. 66/77, wherein the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence under section 417 IPC., but remanded the matter to the lower court for fresh disposal by directing the lower court to frame a charge under section 417 IPC. and giving liberty to the complainant to adduce such evidence as may be necessary and also to give an opportunity to hear the accused and dispose of the case according to law.

(2.) What had happened in this case was that a private complaint was filed with the allegation that prior to the marriage of the accused with the complainant, the accused misrepresented that he was a bachelor and had no encumbrances and that his name was Nanheba son of Jaffer Beig, and that his father was a landlord at Bangalore. On the basis of this representation the father of the complainant was made to part with Rs. 2,000/- and a gold ring of 0-6-0 weight and several other clothes for the marriage and eventually he married the complainant. Thereafter it came to light that the accused was already married to another woman and had a child. Therefore this complainant was filed for offences punishab/e under sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. The learned judicial I Class Magistrate. Hindupur took cognizance of the offence under sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. and framed charges thereunder and after holding trial found that the complainant had not proved the case with regard to the offences punishable under sections 419 and 420 I.P.C It also found that the complainant has proved the case beyond reasoanble doubt warranting a conviction of the accused under section 417 I.P.C. He therefore convicted the accused of the offence punishable under section 417 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for three months. The accused preferred an appeal. The Appellate court found that no doubt there is ample evidence to prove that the accused committed an offence punishable under section 417 I.P.C. but nevertheless thought it proper that, since no charge has been framed under section 417 I.P.C. and no particulars of the offence of section 417 I.P.C. are made out in the charge already made. therefore ends of justice demanded that a fresh charge under section 417 I.P.C. should be framed against the accused and an opportunity should be given to the complainant and the accused to prove their respective cases. Therefore, with this direction, it allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court.

(3.) In this revision Mr. Balireddy contends that before remanding the case back to the trial court for framing a charge under section 417 I.P.C, the Appellate Court ought to have considered the provisions of Section 468 read with section 222 sub-section (4) of the Cr. P. C. What Mr. Balireddy contends is that no doubt the complainant under section 468, but nevertheless section 222 (4) of the Cr. P. C. provides where the conditions requisite for initiation of the proceedings in respect of the minor offence have not been satisfied the provisions of that section cannot be deemed to authorise the conviction of any minor offence, In other wotds, Mr, Balireddy submits that the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings In respect of section 417 I. P. C, have not been satisfied by the complainant and therefore no conviction of any minor offence could be authorised because section 468 Cr. P. C. provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the catagory specified in sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of one yeaJ, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.