GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR Vs. HORNAPLA TANGKHULNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Government of Manipur against the judgment and order of S.D.O. Magistrate Second Class, Ukhrul, dated 25.9.1964 by which he acquitted the respondent Hornapla Tangkhulni of the offences under Sections 447 and 379 I.P.C.

(2.) THE facts leading up to this appeal are few and simple. On 9.11.1961 Ngariphung Nagini and Rasim Shaiza lodged the complaint in the Court of S.D.M. Ukhrul against the respondent Hornapla Tangkhulni and others under Sections 447 and 379 I.P.C. with the contention that the accused trespassed in their paddy field called Shiyang and harvested paddy crops standing thereon. The S.D.M. without taking cognisance of the complaint forwarded it to the Officer in charge Police Station, Ukhrul, for investigation. The Police treated it as a written F.I.R. and registered the case under F.I.R. 73 (11)/61 Ukhrul Police Station under Sections 447 and 379 I.P.C. and after investigation a charge -sheet was submitted to the Magistrate only against the respondent under Sections 447 and 379 I.P.C. The learned S.D.M. transferred the case to the file of Magistrate Second Class, Ukhrul Sub -Division. On 19.4.1962, the learned Magistrate before framing the charge examined the informant and thereafter framed the charge against the accused and without correctly following the procedure under Section 251A Cr.P.C. adjourned the case for further examination of other P.Ws. Thereafter some more witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, The case was adjourned for 25.9.1964. On 25.9.1964 when the case was called on for hearing the informant Ngaraiphung Tangkhulni was absent, therefore the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate contended that in this case the learned Magistrate has erred in law in treating the case as a complaint case and discharging the accused due to the absence of the informant. It was next pointed out that in this case the learned Magistrate framed the charge against the accused, therefore his order of discharge of the accused amounts to an acquittal, and hence the petitioner was entitled to file the appeal. The learned Government Advocate further contended that in this case the charge was framed, therefore the learned Magistrate should have -tried to procure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses and thereafter he should have discussed the evidence on record, and after that he should have passed the order either of acquittal or of conviction. In this case the learned Magistrate adopted a wrong procedure, and also acted illegally in acquitting the accused, therefore this order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed.