AMRIK CHAND Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 3.1.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar by which the revision petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ropar dated 29.7.1991 was set aside.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are :

(3.) IN view of the interpretation of Section 249 of the Code, it is clear that this provision applies only to a case where the complainant is absent and in that case too the discretion is given to the trial Court to discharge the accused or to continue the proceedings. In a case where the complainant dies, this provision is not attracted. The trial Court, in this case, in the ends of justice allowed Bachan Singh to continue the proceedings in the complaint and the discretion has been judicially exercised by the trial Court. No illegality in the order of the trial Court has been pointed out and the order of the trial Court was justified. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar has erred in law in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court on 29.7.1991. The order under revision passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ropar dated 3.1.1992 is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for further proceedings in the complaint. Order accordingly