Skip to content


Gobinda Prasad Bhagat Vs. Ram Prasad Bhagat and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 270 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Ori152
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 257, 259 and 439
AppellantGobinda Prasad Bhagat
RespondentRam Prasad Bhagat and ors.
Appellant AdvocateH. Mohapatra and ;R.N. Misra, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateP.C. Chatterji, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - however, well grounded that reason may be, it was entirely within the discretion of the magistrate to adjourn a case or not......the magistrate (sri a.k. palit, magistrate, 2nd class) to show cause why his order acquitting the accused persons should not be set aside.2. the petitioner filed a complaint under sections 323 and 379, penal code, alleging that he had been relieved of a sum of rs. 250/- by the accused persons and assaulted in his sister's house when he was about to go to his lawyer. the accused persons were put on trial and some witnesses were examined before charge. on the evidence so far recorded, the court framed charge under sections 323 and 379, and the case stood posted for further cross-examination on 27-7-51. on that day, the complainant and the two prosecution witnesses were absent. three other prosecution witnesses were present. the defence wanted to cross-examine the complainant before.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner, who was the complainant in the lower Court, has obtained a rule calling upon the Magistrate (Sri A.K. Palit, Magistrate, 2nd Class) to show cause why his order acquitting the accused persons should not be set aside.

2. The petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 323 and 379, Penal Code, alleging that he had been relieved of a sum of Rs. 250/- by the accused persons and assaulted in his sister's house when he was about to go to his lawyer. The accused persons were put on trial and some witnesses were examined before charge. On the evidence so far recorded, the Court framed charge under Sections 323 and 379, and the case stood posted for further cross-examination on 27-7-51. On that day, the complainant and the two prosecution witnesses were absent. Three other prosecution witnesses were present. The defence wanted to cross-examine the complainant before cross-examining his witnesses. As the complainant and two other prosecution witnesses were not available, the Magistrate held that their evidence should be expunged from the record and directed acquittal of the accused as obviously the other evidence was not sufficient to sustain the charge.

3. So far as the procedure adopted by the Magistrate is concerned, I do not think it can be called in question. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that the complainant was absent owing to a breach in the railway line. However, well grounded that reason may be, it was entirely within the discretion of the Magistrate to adjourn a case or not. Having refused to adjourn and recorded an order of acquittal. I should be loath to interfere, in revision with such an order. I would, therefore, hold that this revision has no merit and should be dismissed.

4. The petition is dismissed.


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