STATE Vs. GANGA RAM KALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate Kamrup, Gauhati, calling into question the procedure followed by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Barpeta, in this case.

(2.) THE facts may be briefly stated. There was a chargesheet filed against the accused persons, 9 in number, in the Court of the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Barpeta. The Magistrate apparently called for a report from the Police and on receipt of the final report, ordered the discharge of the accused persons on 26.6.61. Subsequently on 22.8.61 without any frech chargesheet or complaint, the learned Sub -divisional Magistrate decided to proceed afresh against the accused persons, and ordered summonses to be issued to them, fixing a later date for evidence. It is this procedure that has been followed by the Sub -divisional Magistrate that is questioned in this reference.

(3.) IN this connection, it is necessary to point out that a Magistrate can discharge an accused before him, at the stage at which the. learned Sub -divisional Magistrate did in this case, in the first instance only when he was satisfied on a consideration of all the materials placed before him, and after complying with the provision of Section 251 -A(2) and he came to the conclusion that the charge against the accused was groundless, and it is obviously imperative on the part of the Magistrate to have made record of his opinion in this matter by noting down in the order that he complied with Section 251 -A(2) and on such compliance he found that the charge against the accused was groundless. The order of the learned Sub -divisional Magistrate dated 22.8.61 is as vague as ever and such vagueness should be avoided in making judicial orders. The reference is accordingly accepted as indicated above.