Skip to content


Chiranji Lal Vs. Ram Swarup - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943All9
AppellantChiranji Lal
RespondentRam Swarup
Excerpt:
.....v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - he has recommended to this court to set aside an order of acquittal passed by a subordinate magistrate and to direct a fresh trial......the accused because the complainant and his witnesses did not appear for cross-examination. the trial magistrate was obviously wrong and the reason why he made a mistake was that he did not realise the basic principle underlying criminal trials. he seems to have thought that it was his business to decide a private dispute between the complainant and the accused and that he was entitled to acquit the accused of a non-compoundable and cognizable offence of criminal breach of trust under section 408, penal code, merely because the complainant did not appear to prosecute the charge. the magistrate should realize that the burden is upon him in the trial of warrant cases to discover from the complainant or otherwise what evidence is available and to see that that evidence is produced and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Allsop, J.

1. This is a reference by the learned Additional District Magistrate of Agra. He has recommended to this Court to set aside an order of acquittal passed by a Subordinate Magistrate and to direct a fresh trial. The Subordinate Magistrate after framing a charge acquitted the accused because the complainant and his witnesses did not appear for cross-examination. The trial Magistrate was obviously wrong and the reason why he made a mistake was that he did not realise the basic principle underlying criminal trials. He seems to have thought that it was his business to decide a private dispute between the complainant and the accused and that he was entitled to acquit the accused of a non-compoundable and cognizable offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 408, Penal Code, merely because the complainant did not appear to prosecute the charge. The Magistrate should realize that the burden is upon him in the trial of warrant cases to discover from the complainant or otherwise what evidence is available and to see that that evidence is produced and that a proper inquiry is made by him. If the case is compoundable and non-cognizable, that is, if it is a minor case in which it may be said that the interest of the general public is subordinated to the interest of the person directly injured, it is open to a Magistrate to dismiss the complaint if the complainant does not appear before a charge is framed, but once the charge has been framed or if the case is non-compoundable and cognizable, it is the duty of the Magistrate in the interests of the general public to see whether an offence has been committed and to punish it if he thinks that the accused is guilty. I set aside the order of acquittal and direct that the accused person shall be tried again.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //