BUDHIRAM KHATUA Vs. ANIMA BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OPPOSITE Party-1 the Headmistress of the Udala Girls High School where the petitioner was the night watchman. Opposite Party-2 is the A. S. I. Police at Udala. The petitioner filed a complaint on the following allegations. In the morning of 242-66 Opp. Party-1 sent him to the police station to lodge an information that a purse containing Rs. 26/- had been stolen from her residential quarters in the previous night the sub-Inspector of Police deputed Opp. Party-2 for inquiry After some conversation with the Headmistress, the house of the complainant was searched. Thereafter at the instigation of the Headmistress the A S I. assaulted him with shoes and a split bamboo to extrot a confession from him that he committed theft. It was also alleged that the A. S I. pricked a pin into his right finger causing a bleeding injury. He became unconscious and regained his senses at about evening. He was treated in the hospital as an indoor patient for about ten days The complaint petition was filed on 5-3-65 with a delay of nine days before the Sub-divisional Magistrate. The complaint petition was sent to the S. D. O. , Magistrate, First Class, Udala, for inquiry Under Section 202. Cr P. C. He submitted report saying that there was no prima facie case Under Section 330 against Opp. Party-2 and 330/109, I. P. C against Opp. Party-1. The complainant filed a protest petition. The S. D. M. held that there was a prima facie case and issued processes against them. During the commitment inquiry, four P. Ws. and four D. Ws. were examined. After consideration of the evidence, the S. D. M. held that there were not sufficient grounds to commit the accused persons to the Court of Session and discharged the accused Under Section 209, Cr. P. C. The petitioner filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the same observing that the complainant had failed to make out a prima facie case Under Section 330. I. P. C. Against this order the revision has been filed.

(2.) THE orders passed by the learned Courts below are fairly well discussed on facts. The learned Sessions Judge referred to Ex A a complaint in writing filed by the petitioner before the President. Fourth Grade Government Servants association wherein there was no reference to the complainant being induced to make a confession about theft. Ex A also does not contain the allegation that a pin was pricked into his right ring finget. It is unnecessary to discuss all the materials referred to in the iudgment of the learned Sessions Judge. It would be sufficient to say that he reached the correct conclusion on fact that the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case. Mr. Mohanty does not assail this finding. His contention is that the Courts below have no iurisdiction to make an elaborate discussion of the materials on record in discharging the accused.

(3.) TO appreciate Mr. Mohanty's contention, reference to Sections 207a and 209, cr. P. C. is necessary. Section 207a prescribes the procedure for commitment when the proceeding is instituted on a police report while Section 209 deals with the circumstances under which the accused is to be discharged in a commitment proceeding instituted on a private complaint.