MANGLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by Mangla and Binjia under sec. 435 Cr.P.C. In the alternative it is urged that if the revision does not lie under sec. 435 Cr.P.C, the application should be treated as one under sec. 561A Cr. P. C.

(2.) It is stated by the petitioners that petitioner Mangla had filed a complaint against Bakta and 6 others for offences under sec. 447 and 352 I.P.C. in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Jodhpur. That complaint related to an incident which took place on 8. 8. 1956. The Magistrate discharged other accused, but framed charges against Ummedsingh and Bakta. Ummedsingh was also acquitted later on. Bakta alone was convicted under sec. 352 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ - or in default to undergo 15 days imprisonment. This judgment was given on 30.7.1960. A few months before the said judgment i.e., on 30.3.1960 the Police challaned the present petitioners Mangla and Binjia for offences under sec. 325 I.P.C. in the court of the Magistrate F.C. No.1, Jodhpur. The Magistrate has framed charges under sec. 325 and 326 I.P.C. against both the petitioners in this case.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the challan put forward by the Police against the petitioners is in respect of the same incident about which Mangla petitioner had filed a complaint and in which Bakta was convicted under sec. 352 I.P.C. According to the learned counsel, the trial of this case should be ordered to be quashed otherwise there would be two different judgments of two courts with respect to the same occurrence. In support of this argument, the learned counsel has referred to A.I.R. 1936 Cal. 224 (Mohammed Hossain and others Vs. Bholanath Das) and AIR 1943 Lahore 304 (Chaman Lal Vs. Emperor.)