NATHURAM DARJEE Vs. PANNALAL AGARWALA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule was obtained by one Nathuram Darjee, at whose instance a case was started by the Police on a charge of theft against the two accused, Pannalal Agarwala and Ramgopal Agarwala. The order challenged is one dated 11th of October 1960 passed by the trial Magistrate by which the learned Magistrate purported to acquit the two accused under Section 258(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) A charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against both the accused persons and it appears that on 11th October 1960 both the accused were present in court but none of the prosecution witnesses were present. The prosecuting Sub Inspector made an application to the Court for adjournment of the case on the ground ¦that none of the prosecution witnesses were present, and he prayed for fixing another date on which he undertook to produce the prosecution witnesses.

(3.) DR . Medhi appearing on behalf of the accused -opposite party contended that the Magistrate had no other alternative but to requit the accused persons since there was no evidence on record on the basis of which a conviction could have been recorded. The order though passed In the form in which it stands actually meant that the accused were acquitted because there was no evidence against them. He further raised other points, to which we need not refer, namely as to the power for summoning witnesses by the court.