DHARAMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Partabgarh dated February 12, 1973 by which he set aside the order of the learned Munsiff -Magistrate, Nimbahera dated September 13, 1972 discharging the accused -petitioner under Section 330, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on December 13, 1972 Mangilal filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 342, 323, 330 and 506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code alleging therein that on December 20, 1972 he was called by Patwari, Nanana. When he reached the Patwarkhana, patwari Mohanlal and Tehsildar Dharampal Singh were present there who demanded Rs. 105/ -, said to be due from him for the manure and on his expressing inability to make the payment at that time he was made to kneel down and he was slapped by the Tehsildar and the Patwari detained him. On this complaint being lodged a case under Section 330, Indian Penal Code was registered and the court proceeded with the case. The learned Magistrate by his order, referred to above, discharged the accused Aggrieved by that order the complainant went in revision and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that the argument about the revisional court being slow in interfering with the impugned orders applies equally to the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court should not go into the details of the order if the learned Sessions Judge rather should see whether there is any illegality in the matter or not Placing reliance on the case of M.R. Dhawan v. Partap Bhanu : 1978CriLJ769 the learned Public Prosecutor stressed that the Sessions Courts are well within their powers to order for commitment in cases where the Magistrate without going into depth of the matter discharged the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor agreed that the learned Sessions Judge has expressed certain opinion about the case in his order such as the witnesses being independent or not and has also given a definite opinion as to what cases are made out which he should not have done. But by that alone the order should not be set aside rather it may be observed that the Magistrate while complying with the directions of the learned Sessions Judge may not look in to that part of the order which deals with the appreciation of evidence of forming an opinion about the offences ex facie made out.