KHAJE AHMMED SHEIKH Vs. ABDUL MANNAN MRIDDAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revisional petition is directed against the order of the learned Sub divisional Magistrate of Kalna discharging the opposite parties obviously under Section 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) AN application for drawing up proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C., was made by the petitioner -first party on the 30th July 1963. Proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C., were drawn up on the 30th August 1963, On 16th March 1964 cause was shown by the opposite parties. The first party made a prayer for an order under Section 117 (s), Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case to the 31st March 1964 for evidence. On the 31st March 1964 the petitioner did not adduce any evidence but made a prayer for time and for calling for certain records. The case was adjourned to 21st July 1964. On that date the petitioner filed certain documents and again made a prayer for an order under Section 117 (3), Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate thought that the petitioner should adduce some evidence before he could pass an order under Section 117 (3), Criminal P. C. The case was adjourned to 26th May 1964 for evidence. On the 25th May 1964 the petitioner made a prayer for shifting the date of hearing. It appears from the petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate that he was indisposed and that he would require at least one month to enable him to be present in Court and to adduce evidence. The case was adjourned to 6th July 1964. Again the case was adjourned to 31st July 1964. On that date the case had to be adjourned to 8th September 1964 as the Trying Magistrate was on leave. On the 8th September 1964 the learned Magistrate made an order that the petitioner had not produced any witnesses and that there were no materials on which the learned Magistrate could pass an order under Section 117 (s), Criminal P. C. The cage was again adjourned to 29th October 1964 for evidence. On that date the opposite parties were present but the petitioner was absent and the learned Magistrate made the order complained against. This Revision petition is directed against that order which is quoted below: 1st party takes no step. Ist party had all along been represented by lawyers, No tadbir on their behalf or on behalf of the prosecution. No P. W. present. Prosecution should therefore fail for non -prosecution. O. P. (6) are discharged.

(3.) ON the facts of this case I feel bound by the Bench decision of this Court.