NAYEEM KHAN Vs. SITARAM ALIAS SURESH SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Sitaram had filed a complaint for offences under Sections 341, 427, 294, 506 and 448/34 I.P.C., in the Court of C.J.M. Hoshangabad. The trial Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, by his order dated 28/5/1981 dismissed the complaint. Against that order the complainant filed a revision. Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, allowed by his order dated 28/2/1984, the Criminal Revision No. 37 of 1981 and set aside the order of the trial Magistrate. He directed that the case be registered for offences under Sections 341, 452, 427, 294 and 506/34 I.P.C. against four respondents who are the applicants in the present revision. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge mentions that the complainant had stated that he wanted to proceed only against these applicants and not against the others. As a matter of fact, the revision in the Court below was also filed only against these four persons who are the applicants in the present revision. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order or the Additional Sessions Judge, the present revision has been filed by the four accused.

(2.) The trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint as according to him accused No.1 Nayeem Khan, who was the Administrator of the Municipal Council, acted in exercise of the powers given to him under the M.P. Municipalities Act. He has further stated that though the complainant has in his evidence stated that no notice had been received by him, but this was not enough and it was incumbent upon him to have summoned the municipal record to prove that no notice was sent to him. He seems to have drawn some inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act to find that notice must have been given to him. Thus according to the trial Magistrate, the act of accused No.1 was in exercise of the powers vested in him under the law and so no mala fides can be alleged against any of the accused.

(3.) The Additional Sessions Judge has observed that from the material on record, it prima facie appears that these four accused surrounded the shop of the complainant, committed trespass, abused and threatened him and also caused damage in the shop. This according to him cannot be taken to be acts committed during the discharge of the duties. Thus, finding that there was a prima facie case against these four accused, he gave the direction in the impugned order, which has been mentioned above.