RAMDEEP SINGH Vs. SHYAMA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the filing of a complaint against the appellant; by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge of Gaya.

(2.) A dacoity case started on a petition of complaint filed by appellant Ramdeep Singh. On the case being committed to session, two sessions cases, bearing Sessions Trial Nos. 43 and 68 of 1957, came to be registered. They were transferred for disposal to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge who, by his judgment dated the 21st September, 1957, held the prosecution case to be false and acquitted all the accused persons. The accused persons filed an application on the 20th November, 1957, before the same learned Judge, and made a prayer that he should file a complaint against Ramdeep Singh and the alleged eye-witnesses for the prosecution in the sessions trial. Under an order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge dated the 4th March, 1958, a complaint has been filed against all the appellants. The offence alleged against all of them is one under Section 193, and in addition, the offence alleged against appellant Ramdeep and his wife, Khubsurat Kuer, is one under Section 211 of the Penal Code. 2a. It is manifest that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to notice Section 479-A, which was added to the Code of Criminal Procedure by Act XXVI of 1955 which came into force on the 1st January, 1956. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that, if the court is of opinion that:

(3.) The words which I have quoted above have been extracted almost verbatim from Section 193 of the Penal Code, and have been inserted in Section 479-A. It is admitted by Mr. Sharma that there is nothing in the order of acquittal dated the 21st September, 1957, which can, be construed! to be a finding as required by Section 479-A, and that, therefore, the learned Judge was completely debarred from filing a complaint against the appellants for an offence under Section 193 by a subsequent order. So far as appellant Khubsurat Kuer is concerned, she was not the complainant, and she cannot be said prima facie to have committed an offence under Section 211. She cannot, therefore, be prosecuted under that section,