DALIP Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision in this petition for revision turns on the question whether impugned order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, under Sub -section (3) of Section 173 or Sub -section (6) of Section 207 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

(2.) A first information report was lodged against four persons, Jai Singh, Jarnail Singh, Kehar Singh and Ajmer Singh, for having caused the murder of Surta Singh on 5th July, 1966. According to the report which was lodged by Dalip, a nephew of Surta Singh, the occurrence was witnessed by him and his father. The case was investigated by the police and in the challan which was put before the Magistrate, Jai Singh and Jarnail Singh out of the four persons named on the first information report were mentioned in column 2 as persons who had been arrested but against whom the challan was not being put in Court. According to the statement of the case, mentioned in the challan, Jai Singh and Jarnail Singh had not participated in the crime and it was mentioned that they should not be proceeded against. It was, however, mentioned that Kehar Singh and Ajmer Singh should be proceeded with under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IT has been the case of the complainant, that the Magistrate could not have discharged Jai Singh and Jarnail Singh without evidence having first been recorded and an order passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 207 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant, accordingly, moved the Sessions Judge, Ambala, for directing the Magistrate to proceed against Jai Singh and Jarnail Singh in accordance with law. The petition having been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, on 23rd January, 1967, the complainant has against removed this Court in revisional proceedings.