T TIRUVENKATACHARIAR Vs. MSCHOCKALINGA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused were tried by the Third Presidency Magistrate in 1921 for getting the complainant arrested on a warrant and sent to the Civil Jail when he possessed a valid protection order. The acts of the accused were taken as offences falling under Secs.341, 342 and 114, Indian Penal Code. The trial ended in the discharge of the two accused, and this is an application to set aside the discharge and to order further enquiry.

(2.) The reasons given by the Magistrate are (1) that the evidence shows that first accused was not present when the arrest was made: (2) the Bailiff who made the arrest takes the whole responsibility on himself and (3) the prosecution failed to make out a case against the accused.

(3.) The Bailiff (P.W. No. 3) no doubt stated in his evidence that he acted on his own interpretation of the protection order. But in his report (Exhibit L 3) he stated that second accused was worrying him to do his duty and to arrest the man and take him to Jail, and Prosecution Witnesses Nos. 2/4 and 6 stated in their evidence that accused No. 1 insisted on the complainant being taken to Jail.