GURUPADA ROY Vs. PNMALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Burdwan in a case in which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Asansol has permitted the Public Prosecutor to withdraw a case under Section 379, Indian Penal Code against the two accused named Kumar Pashupati Nath Malia of the Searsole Raj family and Upendra Nath Ghatak, his Manager. The complainant in the case was a clerk acting on behalf of a Muktear Guru Prasanna Banerjee who was the real complainant in the case, the offence alleged being one of paddy cutting.

(2.) The complaint was filed on 7-1-1946 (though dated 1945). It was sent for a judicial enquiry by a Magistrate of the first class who reported on the 25 February that a prima facie case had been made out against the two persons named above; whereupon summons under Section 379 of the Code was issued against them. The Kumar was allowed to appear by an agent.

(3.) On the 19 April before any witnesses had been examined in the case a long petition was filed on behalf of the accused before the Additional District Magistrate of Burdwan asking that the proceedings should be quashed. The District Magistrate called for the records and asked the Public Prosecutor to examine them. The Public Prosecutor then submitted a long report recommending that the case be withdrawn under Section 494, Criminal P.C. The Additional District Magistrate then withdrew the ease from the file of the trial Magistrate to his own file. A petition for withdrawal was filed before him and he consented to the withdrawal and the accused was discharged.