LAWS(MPH)-2002-2-70

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MOHD JABBAR KHAN

Decided On February 07, 2002
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
V/S
MOHD.JABBAR KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioner, the State of Madhya Pradesh, has called in question the sustainability of the order dated 5-5-1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ajaygarh, Panna in Criminal Case No. 297/98 whereby the learned Magistrate has discharged the non-applicant, Mohd. Jabbar Khan, in exercise of power conferred on him under Section 249 of the Code.

(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass. The State of M. P. through Forest Range Officer filed a complaint petition before the aforesaid Magistrate against the accused in respect of offences punishable under Sections 33 and 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 on the allegation that he had felled 72 pieces of wood belonging to two categories, namely, teak and 'satkata'. Before the learned Magistrate, the complainant did not examine himself and time was sought on many an occasion and the learned Magistrate fixed the case to 5-5-99 for recording of evidence of the complainant and his witnesses and it was mentioned by the Magistrate that if the complainant and his witnesses were not produced on the date fixed the accused would be discharged. In spite of the aforesaid peremptory order the complainant did not make himself present in the Court to dispose and no application was filed specifying the reasons why the complainant or witnesses were not produced before the Court. Consequently the impugned order followed.

(3.) It is apposite to mention here that against the order passed by the learned Magistrate a revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Panna and eventually the matter came to be dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Before the said Court an application was filed by the learned public prosecutor that the matter would be agitated before the High Court by filing a revision and on that submission the Criminal Revision was withdrawn. Thereafter the present petition has been filed.