SHYAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order dated 30. 6. 94 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Karauli.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that there was an incident in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Karauli on 5. 4. 91 where the petitioner has allegedly man-handled an advocate of the other side. THE proceedings for contempt of court were taken and besides that a criminal complaint u/ss. 324, 341, 323, 394, 504 and 427 IPC was also filed. THE proceedings for contempt of court ultimately resulted in discharge of the notices by order of this court dated 3. 11. 92 which were as under: - "an application under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was filed by Sushil Kumar Rawat against Shyam Singh for taking contempt proceedings against him. THE allegations made in the application are that the respondent Shyam Singh had misbehaved with the appellant in the court room by catching his neck mercilessly. THEre is no report of the Presiding Officer as to happening in the court room. THE applicant also did not file the application with the permission of the Advocate General. About the incident in the court it is its version that bears material. THE incident allegedly took place on 2. 4. 91 about two years have passed. It is not in the interest of justice that action be taken against the respondent Shyam Singh. Let the case be sent to the court below immediately for decision. "

(3.) THE decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Rabindra Dhal and Ors. vs. Jairam Sethi (6), has also been relied on wherein it was observed as under : - "where the complaint was dismissed after issue of commons to the accused on account of the absence of the complainant the order would amount to one of the acquittal irrespective of whether the Magistrate uses the word 'discharge' or 'acquitted'. THErefore, the order of discharge of the accused passed under S. 245 by the Magistrate for the offence of the theft as the Complainant was absent on the date of the hearing, would amount to acquittal under S. 256. Thus the subsequent trial of the accused for the commission of the same offence, in which conviction was recorded against him, was illegal in view of s. 300. "