SARBA NAND SINGH Vs. NANI BHUSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th November, 1980 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 542 of 1989 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the criminal revision filed by Opposite Party complainant and set aside the order dated 6-4-89 passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 121 (c) 89 whereby the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint petition.

(2.) It appears that the Opposite Party filed a complaint before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate on 27-3-89 who ordered it to be registered and directed the case to be put on 28-3-89, as the complaint was filed late. On 28-3-89 the case was adjourned to 6-4-89 on the application of complainant's Counsel for time. On 6-4-89 further a request was made for examining the complainant on oath. The learned Magistrate did not appear to have passed any order on the application of time. However, he noted on that date that the complaint did not bear the signature of the complainant. It is further noted that the learned Counsel for the complainant had requested for time and permission for getting the signature of the complainant done on the complaint. Thereafter the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint does not bear the signature of the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order the Opposite Party filed Criminal Revision No. 542/89 which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge served that the complainant could not have been dismissed without examining the complainant on oath and without considering the statement on oath of the witnesses to be examined on behalf of the complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge.further observed that the learned Magistrate has erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the same has not been signed by the complainant. Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court this criminal revision application has been filed by the petitioners who were impleaded as accused in the complaint.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint was legal as there could not be any complaint without the signature of the complainant. It is contended that in absence of the signature of the complainant it could not be ascertained if the complainant had actually filed the complaint. It is further contended that the complainant did not appear before the Court for making his statement on oath despite taking time on 28-3-89 and the Court had no option but to dismiss the complaint if the complainant did not appear to make his statement on oath in support of the complaint despite having been given opportunity for the same.