RAM GOBIND SINGH Vs. LALLU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference must be accepted. A private complaint was filed by Ram Gobind Singh against Lallu Singh and others and the case was being tried by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate concerned. The record shows that a Legal Practitioner engaged by the complainant was permitted by the Trying Magistrate to conduct the prosecution case. In his explanation the District Magistrate has admitted that "it is true that the Prosecuting Inspector did not actually take part in the conduct of this case." After the evidence of the complainant had been recorded, a charge was framed and it was after that stage that the accused persons made an application to the District Magistrate requesting that the case be withdrawn on certain terms. The file was sent for. When sending up the file the Trying Magistrate addressed a note to the District Magistrate setting forth the facts of the case and winding up with the remark "I, therefore, would strongly recommend the application for your kind consideration because I do not believe that the accused committed the offence with intent to defraud." On reading the report of the Trying Magistrate and perusing the file the District Magistrate seems to have been of opinion that the case was not one which should be dragged to its bitter end. He accepted the apology of the accused persons as well as the offer of the sum of Rs. 4,500 for a charitable purpose. He ordered that "the P.I. (that is the Prosecuting Inspector) will withdraw the case. Out of Rs. 4,500, Rs. 200 will be paid to the complainant to defray his expenses and to compensate him." This order reached the Trying Magistrate's Court before whom a further application was presented by the Court Inspector. On that application the Trying Magistrate passed this order "The case has been withdrawn by the District Magistrate, The accused should be acquitted accordingly."

(2.) These are the facts about which there can be no dispute whatsoever. The question for consideration is whether the order passed by the Trying Magistrate was legal and whether in any case it ought to be set aside.

(3.) On behalf of the accused persons it has been contended that I must assume that the District Magistrate in sending for the file had actually recalled the case or withrawn it from the Court of the Trying Magistrate and was himself seised of it, and was enquiring into it, or trying it, and that it was in the course of such an enquiry or trial that he appointed the Court Inspector as a person to conduct the prosecution of this case within the meaning of Section 495, Criminal Procedure Code, and that, therefore, the latter was duly authorised to withdraw the case. On the facts narrated by me, such assumptions would be altogether unjustified.