NIDHAN SINGH Vs. KAUR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference from the Additional Sessions Judge, recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate, Faridkot, acquitting the accused is bad in law and should be set aside.

(2.) ON the complaint of the petitioner Nidhan Singh, Kaur Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Sardara Singh were tried under sections 323/504/ 392/394 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge, however, was framed against these accused persons only under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and the offence was being tried as Summons case. The procedure for the trial of Warrant cases, however, was adopted by the trial Magistrate. As I have said, the charge had been framed against the accused and further cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses had been recorded. The statements of the accused had also been recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and what remained to be done on 22nd September, 1963, was to record the evidence of the defense. The complainant, however, did not appear on that day till 12.5 P. M., and the Magistrate dismissed the complaint in default of his appearance and the accused -persons were acquitted.

(3.) ASSUMING in favour of the respondents that the trial was that of Summons Case, the Magistrate did not act in accordance with law. It is said in proviso to section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the case of non -appearance of the complainant, that :