KARTIKESWAR NAYAK Vs. KARADI JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, R. Udayagiri dismissing the petitioner's complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) is assailed in this revision.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is stated in brief. On 1.2.1980 the complainant purchased 2 bags of Jinjili and one bag of mustard at Chudangapur weekly market. He kept the seeds in 6 gunny bags and came to the road side at about 11 a. m. and was waiting for a bus to proceed to his village. At that time all the opposite parties arrived at the place. Opposite party No. 1. an Inspector of Weights and Measure gave him a slap on the left cheek and snatched away a bag from the petitioner which contained a sum of Rs. 1,059/ - and handed over the bag to opposite party No. 2 who brought out the aforesaid amount and kept the same in his shirt pocket. Opposite parties 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 forcibly removed the 6 bags containing Jinjili and mustard. The petitioner raised hue and cry. The villagers of Chudangapur came running, whereupon, the opposite parties threw the bags and ran away. Opposite party Mo. 2 also returned the sum of Rs. 1,059/ - to the petitioner. According to him the opposite parties committed an offance under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C. for short).

(3.) MR . B.N. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged the learned Judicial Magistrate acted in excess of his jurisdiction by entering into a detailed discussion of the statements of the prosecution witnesses which was not at all permissible in an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, All that was required to do at the Mage was to find out it the petitioner had a prima facie case and if there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against all or any of the opposite parties. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Mr. C.A. Rao, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, urged that because of non -compliance of the proviso to Section 202(2) of the Code, the complaint petition was rightly dismissed according to law. The points raised, required careful examination.