INDERJIT Vs. NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is by Inderjit, one of the accused in this case, and it is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in revision reversing the order of discharge passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are very few and simple, Naresh Kumar complainant -respondent filed a complaint that Inderjit and Dharam Paul, were the Secretary and Cashier, respectively, of the Ram Lila Committee, Ghudani Khan, which was previously unregistered. On 11th May, 1978, at about 4 p m, the Petitioner and the three other accused were present near a dharamshala of Loodo ke -Patti The President and the Secretary of the new Society demanded register etc. from the accused, who started abusing the complainant and in that process, the accused caused some injuries to him. It is alleged that the complainant was medically examined and was found to have 7 simple injuries on his person. Since no action have been taken by the police, the present complaint was filed on 11.7.1978 After preliminary evidence, the Petitioner and Dharam Paul were summoned for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the complainant examined Lai Chand and Vidya Sagar, P Ws., besides himself coming into the witness box. The learned Magistrate after having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that summed his conclusion in paragraph No. 10 of the order in the following terms:

(3.) BEFORE proceeding with the discussion regarding the merits of the case as revealed by the evidence on the record I should at this stage like to dispose of the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the complainant -respondent with respect to jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the order that has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision Reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsel on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sesha Reddy v. Ghina Pullaiah, A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 595, where the view taken is as follows: