BEPIN BEHARI GHOSE Vs. HARI PADA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the opposite party was charged with having committed offences under Secs.109, 477 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. There was an order of commitment committing the opposite party to take his trial in the Sessions Court. The Public Prosecutor at the outset of the trial informed the learned Sessions Judge that he had been instructed after consultation with the District Magistrate to withdraw the case against the opposite party. The learned Sessions Judge thereupon recorded an order to the effect that on perusing the record he found little or nothing in the way of proof against the accused and under these circumstances he allowed the withdrawal of the case against the opposite party under the provision of Section 494, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) On behalf of one Bepin Behari Ghose, Mr. Mukherjee has applied to this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge (which order amounted to an order of acquittal) and has asked that this Court should after setting aside the order passed under Section 494 direct a further trial of the opposite party. In support of Mr. Mukherjee's contention he has referred to two cases decided in this Court where orders under Section 494, Criminal Procedure Code, were revised by this Court. That an order under Section 494 passed by a Sessions Judge can be revised by this Court, has, no doubt, been decided in the two cases, but the question is whether in the circumstances of this case, and having regard to the way in which the Sessions Judge put the matter in his order of the 2 May, 1922, this Court should interfere. It is not the case that the learned Sessions Judge has given his consent under Section 494 without recording his reasons. No doubt the reasons which he has given have been put very briefly by him, but nonetheless he has given reasons, which reasons to our minds seem to be sufficient. In this view of the matter we think no valid reasons have been shown for interfering with the order of the Sessions Judge. It has also been argued by Mr. Mukherjee that the learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to make the order which he did, and Mr. Mukherjee argues that Section 494 is controlled by the other sections in the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the trial of cases committed to the Sessions Court. Having regard, however, to the language of Section 494 there are good reasons for thinking that Section 494 really controls, so far as this matter is concerned, namely the withdrawal by the Public Prosecutor, with the consent of the Court, of the case against the accused, the other sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. We think it cannot with reason be said that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order which he did under the provisions of Section 494, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) The Rule is accordingly discharged.