PUSHPABAI Vs. PRATAPSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned is passed in revision by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kannad, setting aside the order of the Trial Magistrate framing charge against the respondent under Section 494, Indian Penal Code. The respon- dent thus stands discharged of the said offence.

(2.) THE respondent is the husband of the appellant. The applicant-wife filed a complaint against the respondent alleging commission of offence of bigamy under Section 494, Indian Penal Code. The applicant-complainant examined 3 witnesses including herself in evidence before charge before the Trial Court. The learned Magistrate on consideration of that evidence was of the view that a case is made out against the accused which if left unrebutted would warrant his conviction under Section 494, Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, by his order dated 12. 8. 1992 framed charge under Section 494, Indian Penal Code against the respondent-accused. In revision, however, the learned A. S. J. quashed the charge and discharged the respondent-accused by his order impugned, the relevant portion of which reads thus: "xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"

(3.) HAVING h2ard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence recorded before charge, I am clearly of the view that the learned A. S. J. exceeded his revisional powers in discharging the respondent.