KANCHAN BHUSAN DUTTA Vs. SAILENDRA NATH SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal which is under the provisions of Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be allowed.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondent Sailendra Nath Sen before the S.D.O., Basirhat, alleging that the respondent had committed offences under Sections 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate who tried the case decided to proceed under the provisions of Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears from the order-sheet of the case that on 22nd April, 1957 four prosecution witnesses were examined in chief and two were cross-examined before charge. On the next date two more prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined before charge. On the next date of hearing prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 to 4 were cross-examined. On 16th May, 1957 the respondent was said to have been examined under Section 343 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate then adjourned the case for examination of defence witnesses, if any. No defence witnesses were, however, examined. On 26th August, 1957, P.W. 5 was cross-examined after charge and the respondent examined again. Finally on 18th October, 1957 the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent and passed the following order : "Heard argument. The accused is acquitted under Section 258 (1), Cr. P. C. after summary trial."

(3.) I have searched the record in the hope of getting some indication as to what the witnesses had stated and what were the reasons that induced the learned Magistrate to come to the conclusion that he did. My search, however, was useless and I did not anywhere find anything which would enable me to come to decide whether the learned Magistrate's order was justified in the present case. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code deals with an offence which is to be tried as a warrant case. It may be observed that no charge has been framed in the case and in the column for recording the plea of the accused, the learned Magistrate has only noted that "the accused pleads not guilty under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."