BHAULAL Vs. KALLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MACNAIR , Offg. J.C. 1. The order in this criminal revision will govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 320 of 1929 (Dinbandhu v. Kallu). On 6th September 1928 Kallu made a complaint that a petty assault had been committed seven months earlier. The Magistrate heard all the witnesses produced by the complainant and states clearly that he disbelieves them. He gives some substantial reasons such as that the complainant has not told a consistent story. He then made a reference, to the documents filed by the defence, but remarked that it was not necessary for him to do so as he had found no corroborative evidence to support the prosecution. He discharged the accused saying that the prosecution had failed to establish the case.

(2.) IN revision the learned Sessions Judge stated that the Magistrate should not have taken help of the documents filed by the accused in order to decide whether a particular witness was reliable or not. He also remarked that too great stress should not be laid on discrepancies and exaggerations and directed further enquiry into the complaint. In my opinion it was improper to direct further enquiry. The trying Magistrate had considered all the evidence produced and had come to the conclusion, apart from the documents, that that evidence did not make out a prima facie case. The learned Sessions Judge has not dealt with the reasons given for this conclusion. Where a Magistrate completes an enquiry and discharges the accused, further enquiry should not be ordered except for very strong reasons. I therefore set aside the order directing further enquiry.