AJIT SINGH Vs. VED RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the allegations made by the Appellant in his complaint filed by him on March 1, 1965, he was given beating and tortured by the Respondent at Police Station, Ratia, the Respondent pulled one of his legs and a Constable pulled the other while be was made to sit astride on a cot and the surface of skin of his thighs was touched with heated iron rod as he was said to have been making complaints against the Respondent to the higher authorities. The Appellant was also wrongfully confined by the Respondent at the Police Station. On the application of Bakhtawar Singh, brother of the Appellant, the Appellant was examined on February 8, 1965 by Dr. Sudershan Kumar Bhaskar, Medical Officer, District Jail, Hissar. There were found 11 injuries on his limbs and back. Nine injuries were described by the doctor as abrasions. There were noted two injuries in the form of burn marks, one on the right thigh and the other on the left thigh. By order dated March 3, 1965, the trial Magistrate on examination of the complainant and the medico -legal report found that a prima -facie case had been made out. He summoned the Respondent. After several attempts were made to effect service of the summonses upon the Respondent, he was served. The evidence of the complainant and four other witnesses in support of the allegations made in the complaint against the Respondent, namely of Dalel Singh, Chanan Singh, Sarwan Singh and Waryam Singh was recorded. Dr. Sudershan Kumar Bhaskar also appeared to prove the existence and nature of the eleven injuries found on the person of the Appellant, when he was examined on February 8, 1965. The Respondent was charged on December 2, 1966 for offences under Sections 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code for causing hurts to the Appellant with blunt weapons and heated substance. After several adjournments, the case came up for hearing on December 17, 1966. On that date, neither the complainant nor his Counsel was present in Court. The Respondent was present along with his Counsel. The trial Court dismissed the complaint for non -prosecution by the complainant and acquitted the Respondent.

(2.) THE present appeal has arisen on grant of special leave to appeal under Sub -section (3) of Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure Shri M.K. Mahajan appearing on behalf of the Appellant has contended that the trial Magistrate had no power to dismiss the complaint in default of non -prosecution consequent upon nonappearance of the complainant after the charge had been framed for the cognizable offence tried as a warrant case.

(3.) THUS , power to discharge an accused person is subject to the following conditions: