KHALLI DAS Vs. NAHAKA DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in Complaint Case No. 1. C.C. 6 of 1974 has filed this revision against the order dated 16 -10 -1974 passed by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate, Berhampur.

(2.) ON the complaint filed by the Petitioner on 8 -1 -1974, cognizance of an offence under Section 380, Indian Penal Code was taken on 1 -1 -1974 against Ramesh Das and 3 others. The complainant earlier had lodged a First Information Report at Berhampur Taluk P.S., and on investigation the police submitted charge sheet in that case only against Ramesh Das on 9 -4 -1975. On that charge sheet G.R. Case No. 934/73 was instituted, cognizance of offences under Sections 454 and 380, Indian Penal Code was taken only against Ramesh Das and the case proceeded as such.

(3.) IN the impugned order it is stated that since the G.R. Case No. 934/74 is proceeding on the same allegation, the above -mentioned complaint case need not proceed any further. Saying so the Court ordered 'amalgamation' of the complaint case with the G.R. Case. As the G.R. Case is proceeding only against Ramesh Das, the Court discharged the other three accused persons in the complaint case stating that if he would find evidence against them he would later frame charge against those accused persons. Mr. Murty contends that the learned Magistrate, after having taken cognizance of an offence against the three accused persons in the complaint case did not have the power to discharge them in the manner done by him and for reasons stated in the impugned order. There is sufficient weight in this contention. Section 253 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, which makes provision for discharging an accused persons, does not enable a Magistrate to discharge an accused for the reasons stated in the impugned order. Section 253 provides that an accused can be discharged by a Magistrate, if upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 262 and making such examination of the accused as the Magistrate thinks fit, he finds that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. Sub -section (2) thereof provides that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.