RIT LAL KHATWAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the sole appellant, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16-6-1992 passed by Shri Sardar Bhagat Singh, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in S.T. No. 51/ 1981/21/1985 by which the appellant was convicted under Sections 193, 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years, six months and three months respectively.

(2.) It appears that the present appellant filed a written report on 9-2-1976 before Dy. S.P. alleging therein that Swaroop Khatway and nine other accused persons abducted his daughter-in-law and also committed theft of certain household articles. The appellant also filed a protest-cum-complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which after enquiry, was found to be false. The complaint petition was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 2-1-1978 and he filed a complaint petition against the appellant for having committed the offence under the sections mentioned above. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was himself the complainant and the case was also lodged in his Court. Subsequently he transferred it to the Court of Shri R.N.P. Singh, S.D.J.M., Darbhanga for further action. Since one of the offences alleged by the present appellant was under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the appellant was tried by Shri Sardar Bhagat Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, 1st, Darbhanga who was pleased to pass the impugned judgment of conviction. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) In this appeal the appellant has contended that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court below is bad in law and wrong on facts. Material errors of law were committed by the learned Court below by recording a finding of guilty against the appellant on the basis of the evidence of the P.Ws. who figured as accused in the case lodged by the appellant. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who happened to be the complainant was not examined as a witness in the Court and on this basis also the judgment of conviction of the learned Court below cannot be sustained. On these grounds amongst others it has been contended that this appeal be allowed and the judgment of conviction of the appellant be set aside.