KISAN KHANDELWAL Vs. KARUNAKAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the accused against the revisional order of the learned Sessions judge.

(2.) ON 26 -1 -1977 at about 10 A.M. son of opp. party No. 1 sustained fracture wound as a result of accident caused by the driver of a scooter. Since the accused was not known, on 29 -1 -1977 opp. party No. 1 reported the incident at the police station without indicating name of the accused. After coming to know the name of the accused, he intimated the same to police sometimes thereafter. On the basis of the information, C. R. Case No. 142 of 1977 was registered in the Court of Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore, without knowledge that charge sheet was submitted against petitioner on basis of which cognisance of the offence Under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. was taken summoning petitioner to stand trial, opp. party No 1 filed a complaint in the Court on 12 -7 -1978 against the petitioner where it was stated that informition was lodged before police. On 1 -8 -1978 two witnesses were examined and cognisance was taken by the learned Sub -dwis'onil Judicial Magistrate, Balasore summoning petitioner to face trial Under Sections 279 and 338, I.P.C. Petitioner filed a revision in this Court praying to quash cognisance in the complaint case which was registered in this Court as Criminal Revision No. 402 of 1978. In G. R. Case No. 142 of 1977, opp. party No. 1 filed an application for stay of further proceeding. Same hiving been refused, he filed a revision in Court of Sessions Judge which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 47 of 1978. This Court called for records of the said revision to be heard along with Criminal Revision No. 402 of 1978 and on receipt of the records, it was registered in this Court as Criminal Revision No. 95 of 1979. Roth the Criminal Revisions were heard together and it was directed that G. R. Case No. 142 of 1977 and complaint case No. I.C.C. (c) No. 305 of 1978 would be heard together as provided in Section 210 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3.) ON 24 -6 -1986, permitting petitioner to be represented for that day only, case was adjourned to 7 -8 1986 directing complainant to come with his witnesses for hearing. After this order was passed, another order was passed, on representation of the learned counsel for the defence who submitted that accused may be acquitted since complainant was not personally appearing in Court nor he produces witnesses for evidence. Advocate for complainant did not turn up on call. Learned Magistrate passed an order bringing the prosecution to an end.