NIRANJAN KUMAR Vs. KANCHEDILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 15th March, 2001, passed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Katni, in Criminal Revision No. 25/95, so also the order dated 3rd May, 1995, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katni, in Criminal Case No. 5226/94, and makes a prayer that the respondents be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

(2.) A perusal of papers submitted on behalf of the petitioner discloses that on 3rd May, 1995, the learned A. C. J. M. , Katni, discharged the respondents for offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the IPC on a consideration of judgment dated 27th April, 1995, delivered by the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Katni, in Civil Suit No. 295-A/95. The petitioner then assailed the aforesaid order of discharge in Criminal Revision No. 25/95, before 1st A. S. J. , Katni, who disallowed and rejected the same on 15th March, 2001, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Referring the case of Nagarpalika Officer, Bhander v. Rajendra Singh Sengar, reported in 1971 Cr. LJ 381 (DB), it is opined by the learned A. S. J. , Katni, that in the trial of a summon case, even the order of discharge has the effect of acquittal.

(3.) IT is pointed out by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case that where the trial of a summon case is valid, it must end either in conviction or in acquittal, as no third kind of order is contemplated. It is also found explained by this Court in aforesaid case that even if the word "discharge" is used by the Magistrate, it must be read as 'acquittal'. The relevant para of the Nagar Palika Officer (supra), runs as under :-