SURINDER KUMAR ALIAS PALU SINGH Vs. JAGDISH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of Sh. A.P. Chaudhary, Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby he set aside an order of discharge passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak and required of him to frame charges against the petitioner, which appear to have been made out from the prosecution evidence, and thenceforth proceed to try the accuse. The facts, as broadly stated, are these :

(2.) THE complainant went up in revisions before the Sessions Judge, Rohtak and bemoaned that the learned Magistrate had exceeded his powers by disposing of the matter as if it was a judgment of acquittal in a final case. The precise objection was that at the stage of section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate had only to find out a prima facie case and he could not have weighed the evidence doubting the prosecution story.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge noticed that the defence version of the accused was that they went to the spot at 11.30 A.M. when the shop was open and, in accordance with the warrants of possession, the goods of the judgment-debtor were taken out, but, when he offered resistance, thereafter the further proceedings were stopped. But this version, according to the learned Judge, was still to be proved and put before the Court. For the present, the Court had only on version and that was the version of the complainant. The learned Judge then took the view that the stage had not arrived before the Magistrate to consider contradiction in the statements of the witnesses or to evaluate the testimony with that strict standard. Finally, the view taken was that since the incident was practically admitted, the Court was required to determine which out of the two versions was correct and that would only be done at the final stage and not at the stage of consideration of charge. Therefore, it was viewed that the evidence already on the record, if unrebutted, could possibly lead to a conviction.