STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the order of the First Class Magistrate, Tonk dated 17th March, 1964 acquitting the respondent Mukhtiar Singh of an offence under Section 279, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts leading to the appeal are briefly these-On 7th October, 1963 one Mohammed Ilias was carrying his chassis RJR 2647 with a body on the wheels tied to the chassis from Jaipur to Tonk. At about 9 P. M. near village Motuka he noticed certain defects in the vehicle and, therefore, stopped it OR the left side of the road to discover the defect. In the meantime truck No. RJL 7307 driven by the respondent Mukhtiar Singh came from the side of Tonk. Mukhtiar Singh stopped the truck in front of Mohammed Ilias's chassis on the wrong side. One Narainsingh came out from the said truck and demanded a 'biri' from the complainant Mohammad Ilias who was removing the defect of his chassis. He supplied the 'biri' to him. Theieafter the accused started his truck and wanted to pass the complainant's vehicle from the wrong side. The complainant warned him that if the truck was taken from that side it would strike the chassis. The accused respondent turned a deaf ear and drove away his truck with speed. The truck struck the chassis and caused some damage. Mohammed Ilias lodged information at the Police Station, Baroni on the same day at 9-30 P. M. A case under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, was registered and after investigation the accused was challaned in the Court of Magistrate First Class, Tonk. The accused appeared in the Court of the Magistrate and the case was initially fixed on 7-2-1964 for arguments whether a charge should or should not be framed. It may be mentioned here that the case being triable as a summons case the mention in the proceedings of 31-1-1964 of the case having been fixed for arguments with regard to charge appears to be due to an error. The case came up before the Magistrate on 72-1964 and the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector supplied the necessary copies to the accused and the case was fixed for 17-3-1981 for statement of the accused. On 17-3-1964 the statement of the accused was recorded and thereafter the Migistrate wrote an order acquitting the accused-respondent.

(3.) IN this appeal, it has been contended by the State that the Magistrate had acted illegally in recording an order of acquittal without recording the evidence of the parties.