BASAVANA GOWD Vs. KRISHNA RAO NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the Reddy of the village and a man of means, filed a complaint before the District Magistrate charging the Acting Tahsildar of Siruguppah with having beaten him with a slipper. The District Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The sworn statement of the complainant and the deposition of the witnesses examined before the District Magistrate in the enquiry held by him under Section 202, have been read and commented upon and I am of opinion that the evidence recorded certainly affords good grounds for further enquiry. I am unable to see any material discrepancy, or anything on the face of the record to warrant a summary dismissal of the complaint. There can be little doubt from the evidence that the Tahsildar wanted the Reddy to supply him with milk. The evidence of the Revenue Inspector is to the effect that "there was some trouble between the Tahsildar and the Reddy about the milk." He professes to have left the place just then. The petitioner speaks to the assault and two of his witnesses state that the Tahsildar beat the complainant with a shoe and the discrepancies do not affect their credibility in any material way. There has not been any long delay--at least no such delay as would warrant the throwing out of the case in limine.

(3.) I am of opinion that this is a case that requires a full and thorough investigation. It is argued that no revision petition will lie to the High Court unless the party has first applied to the Sessions Court and reference has been made to Shafaqatullah v. Wali Ahmad Khan 30 A. 116 : A.W.N. (1908) 25 : 3 M.L.T. 124 : 7 Cr. L.J. 48, Bhuyan Abdus Sobhan Khan, In re 2 Ind. Cas. 846 : 36 C. 643 : 13 C.W.N. 653 : 16 Cr. L.J. 190 and Queen-Empress v. Chagan Dayaram 14 B. 331.