(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against the order dated 24-12-64 passed by Sri M. J. Rao, Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack, setting aside the order of discharge dated 28-4-64 passed in Case no. 157. C. I. /64 by the S. D. M. , ken-drapara and directing the S. D. M. to frame the appropriate charge against the accused and to commit him to the Sessions Court.
(2.) THE allegation made in the F. I. R. lodged on 12-1-64 by the opposite party was that on 7-1-64 at midnight some unknown person had set fire to his dwelling house in a part of which he had installed a rice-hauler causing damage worth Rs. 7000. The S. I. on investigation did not submit charge-sheet against the petitioner. Thereupon the opposite party filed a complaint petition on 25-9-64 before the learned S. D. M. , Kendra-para against the petitioner resulting in the proceeding against him. At the trial the prosecution examined four witnesses including the opposite party as P. W. 1 who was admittedly present at the time of occurrence, and his son as P. W. 2 who claimed to have slept on the night of occurrence in that very house, though admitted that he was also not an eye-witness of the occurrence. The other two are said to be independent witnesses. P. W. 3 deposed to have seen the petitioner sprinkling something from a bottle on the fire, and P. W. 4 deposed to have seen him running away from the spot in the night of the occurrence.
(3.) THE learned S. D. M. in an elaborate examination of their evidence, found that the witnesses were not reliable and that there was no prima facie case made out against the petitioner and therefore discharged him under Section 209 (1) Cr. P. C. . Agamst this order there was a revision filed before the Additional District magistrate (Judicial) who, as earlier stated, reversed that order and directed a further enquiry in the case. In the opinion of the learned Additional District magistrate there is sufficient evidence in the case to warrant his commitment for trial under Section 436, I. P. C.