UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANIKCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State under Section 417, Cr. P. C. from an order of the additional District and Railway Magistrate, Indore City, acquitting the respondent manikchand under Section 247, Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE facts are that on 23rd March, 1955, Shri Ramchandra, an Inspector appointed under Section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, filed a complaint against Manikchand under Section 22 (2) of the Act. When the case was called on for hearing shortly after 2 P. M. on 12th December, 1955, which was the date fixed for recording the prosecution evidence, the complainant and his counsel were not present in the Court. The accused and his counsel were, however, present. Thereupon the learned Magistrate gave an oral direction that the complaint would be dismissed and the accused would be acquitted. Soon after this direction was given the complainant and his counsel appeared in the Court and presented an application stating that the case was to come up for hearing at 2 P. M. at that time they were present in the Court and their presence was personally noted by the Magistrate; that as the learned Magistrate was in the midst of another case, they left the Court and were sitting in a nearby building where the Court of Additional District Judge was located; that when they again appeared before the Magistrate at about 2-40 P. M. they were informed by him that the case had already been called on for hearing and an oral order acquitting the accused had been passed; and that as no order acquitting [he accused had been written out, 'the absence of the complainant at the time when the case was called on for hearing be excused and the case against the accused be proceeded with. The Magistrate rejected this prayer and accorded an order stating the circumstances in which he had made the oral order under Section 247, Cr. P. C. and acquitted the accused.

(3.) MR. Sharma, learned Government Advocate, argued that as the complainant was present before an order in writing acquitting the accused was made, signed and pronounced by the Magistrate, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to acquit the accused under Section 247, Cr. P. C. Mr. Bharucha, learned counsel appearing for the accused, contended that when the complainant was absent at the time when the case was called on for hearing, the Magistrate had no option but to acquit the accused under Section 247, Cr. P. C. and that the fact that the complainant appeared before ah order in writing acquitting the accused was made did not entitle the complainant to have the oral order of the Magistrate acquitting the accused altered. It was said that the oral order was final and conclusive and even if the Magistrate had omitted to pass a written order, that would have at the most amounted to an irregularity curable under Section 537, Cr. P. C.