RINZING CHODA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. G. L. Subba, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-complainant and the accused-respondents appearing in person and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and have perused the records of the case and we are of opinion that we cannot accept the reference and the recommendations made by the learned Sessions Judge and must decline to interfere.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner-complainant is that he lodged a complaint against the accused-respondents and two other accused persons and that after investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 325/34, of the I. P. C. against the two accused-respondents in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, West Sikkim. The learned Magistrate thereafter recorded the statements of all the witnesses produced by the prosecution numbering five in all and then without framing a charge and without giving the accused-respondents any further opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, proceeded to examine the accused-respondents under Section 342 of the Cr. P. C. and on a consideration of the prosecution evidence so recorded and the statements of the accused-respondent, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order of acquittal.

(3.) AGAINST this order a revisional application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge by the petitioner-complainant challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge has reported the case to this Court with his recommendations that the impugned order be quashed and the case be remanded for trial afresh.