BANSILAL Vs. KALYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by Bansilal against an order of the Extra Magistrate, Indargarh, dated the 9th August 1951, by which Kesra, Madho, Mathura and Lachhman were discharged under sec. 366 I. P. C. and Kesra, Rughnath and wife of Lachhman were acquitted of an offence under sec. 379 I. P. C. Notices were issued to Kesra and others to show cause why the order of the Extra Magistrate, Indargarh, be not set aside and the case be ordered to be committed to the Court of Session. Mr. D. M. Mathur has appeared on behalf of Lachhman and his son Kesra and the other accused have failed to put in their appearance.

(2.) A complaint was lodged on behalf of Bansilal by his father Kanha on the 9th of November 1949 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotah, against Kesra and 13 others and it was alleged that the accused persons kidnapped Mt. Bhuri, wife of Bansilal, aged 14 years, from the filed of Shri Krishna in village Dhipari during the night between the 30th and 31st of October 1949. The complaint was sent by the Magistrate to the police for enquiry under sec. 202 Cr. P. C. Another complaint was lodged to the same effect on the 1st of December 1949 which was transferred to the court of the Extra Magistrate at Indargarh by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotah, for disposal according to law. The case was then inquired into the Magistrate and on the 10th of March 1951 charges were framed against Kesra, Madho, Mathura and Lachman of an offence under sec. 366 I. P. C. and against Kesra, Raghunath and wife of Lachhman under sec. 379 I. P. C. and the remaining accused were discharged. The learned Magistrate then proceeded to examine the defence evidence of the accused and no the 9th of August 1951 after hearing the arguments of both the sides he record and order purporting to be one under sec. , 213 (2) Cr. P. C. discharging the accused Kesra and three others under sec. 166 I. P. C. and acquitting the remaining accused of offences under sec. 379 I. P. C. as that offence was triable by that court. The complainant has come to this court against the aforesaid order of the Extra Magistrate and it has been urged that the Magistrate took a wrong view of his powers under sec. 213 (2) Cr. P. C. in sifting the prosecution evidence again and in discharging the accused at that stage of the proceedings.