SITARAM SAO Vs. SAHDEVA GOPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order of Mr. Indradeva Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, of Barh, whereby he has acquitted the opposite party of a charge under Section 342 of the Penal Code.

(2.) It is unnecessary to state all the facts of the case which have been given by the learned Magistrate in his judgment. The allegations made by complainant Sitaram Sao (P. W. 1) made out a case for an offence under Sec. 342 as well as an offence of arson punishable under Section 436 of the Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet only in respect of the offence under Section 342. When the case was transferred W trial to Mr. Indradeva Sinha, the petitioner prayed to him to charge the opposite party for an offence under Section 436 also and to hold a commitment enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure because that offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The learned Magistrate, however, decided that he would frame a charge against the opposite party only for an offence under Section 342 of the Penal Code and would try them under the procedure for trial of a warrant case. The petitioner again made a similar prayer after the examination of the prosecution witnesses was over; but, by an order dated the 5th December, 1959, the learned Magistrate said:

(3.) Mr. Jugal Kishore Prasad, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the Magistrate should have held a commitment enquiry, in view of the allegation that an offence of arson had also been committed, and that he erred in holding the trial himself. The Magistrate passed orders, in the course of the trial, that he was trying the case under the procedure for trial of a warrant case, and that he would order a commitment enquiry to be held only if it seemed to be necessary at the time of final order. If the petitioner was aggrieved by that Order, he should have moved higher Courts at that stage. The situation now is that the charge was only for an offence under Section 342, which the learned Magistrate was quite competent to try. He has tried that charge and has acquitted the opposite party of that charge. It seems to me that he has not committed any error of law, nor has he acted beyond his jurisdiction.