TARSEM SINGH Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJIT Singh filed a complaint for offences under Sections 437, 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Darshan Singh, Tarsem Singh and Jagdish Ram in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Hoshiarpur. After recording preliminary evidence, the trial Court summoned all the accused to face trial for the offences mentioned in the complaint vide his order dated 28th September, 1991. On 18.10.1991 Tarsem Singh and Jagdish Ram appeared in Court, Darshan Singh did not appear. The complainant Ajit Singh made a statement giving up Tarsem Singh accused and on the basis of his statement, the trial Court passed an order that hereby Tarsem was discharged for the time being as he had gone to England. On 15.2.1992, the counsel for the complainant Ajit Singh moved an application alleging that Tarsem Singh, who had gone abroad, has since returned to India so he may be summoned to stand trial along with other accused. Tarsem Singh has filed the present revision petition assailing this order of summoning passed by Mr. Sanjiv Berry, Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Hoshiarpur. The order was assailed on the ground that when the petitioner was once discharged, he could not be summoned again and the trial Court had no authority to review its own order. Moreover, the offences under Sections 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code are triable as summons case and the discharge in these cases meant acquittal. After passing an order of acquittal, the trial Court became functus officio and the petitioner could not be summoned again to stand trial for those offences. It was further pleaded that in the impugned order it was mentioned that notice of the application filed by the complainant was given to the defence counsel who had no objection but this observation was erroneous as neither the petitioner had appeared in the trial Court at any stage, nor he had engaged any counsel.

(2.) I have heard, Mr. J.B.S. Gill, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satbir Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) AS a result, I accept this revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 15th February, 1992. Petition allowed.