S. Acharya, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 417, Criminal P.C. against the judgment of acquittal passed by a Magistrate. First Class at Balasore in I.P.C. No. 87 of 1967.
The accused persons - respondents herein, stood their trial of charges under Sections 504 and 323, I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of occurrence (16.3.1967) the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant and abused him in filthy language, and accused Gadadhar Mahalik dragged the complainant out of his house and then accused Gobinda Chandra Nayak assaulted him with a stick. The complainant somehow freed himself from the clutches of the above-named accused persons and sot inside the neighbouring house of the Sales Tax Officer. The accused persons followed the complainant, to that house. and as the Sales Tax Officer asked all of them to go out of this house, accused Ramchandra Rout dragged the complainant out of the said house and accused Gadadhar Mahallik assaulted the complainant with a Gupti, as a result of which the complainant sustained some injuries on his person. The occurrence subsided only on the intervention of some gentlemen of the locality. Next morning, the complainant was taken to Jaleswar police station where he lodged his information. Thereafter the complainant got himself examined by a doctor at Jaleswar. As the Police did not take any step in the matter till 3.4.1967. the complainant filed this complaint case against the accused persons.
3. The plea of the accused persons is a complete denial of the prosecution case. They have also stated that this false case has been foisted against them due to previous enmity.
4. The complainant examined four witnesses in this case before charges were framed, but two of them i.e. P. Ws. 2 and 4 thereafter never appeared in the case though several adjournments were granted in that connection. The complainant also did not take all the necessary steps for their production in Court. So the Court expunged their evidence as they were not produced for cross-examination after charge.
5. The Court, on a consideration of the evidence of the complainant and the Medical Officer. P. W. 3, who had examined the complainant, acquitted the accused persons on the finding that the complainant failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Mr. Mohapatra. the learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant, at the outset urged that the Magistrate was legally not justified in writing out this judgment of acquittal as he himself did not record the evidence in this case. In this case, evidence was recorded by another Magistrate who was then in seisin of the matter. The Magistrate delivering the judgment has not committed any illegality by acting on the evidence recorded by the said another Magistrate. As per Section 350, C.P.C. as it now stands, the succeeding Magistrate can decide the case on the evidence duly recorded by another Magistrate, who was then in seisin over the matter. The operation of this section is not confined to any particular class of offences or accused persons. All accused persons whose cases remain unfinished on the date of the transfer of the trying Magistrate are brought under the rule laid down by this section. This section also applies not only where one Magistrate is succeeded by another, but also where the second Magistrate is in his turn, succeeded by another Magistrate. The third Magistrate can act on the evidence recorded by his two predecessors. Govindan v. Krishnan ILR 47 Mad 245 : 25 Cri LJ 566.
7. Mr. Mohapatra cited the decisions reported in : (1962)ILLJ637SC . The dicta in the aforesaid cases are not applicable to the present case. The above decision of the Supreme Court is in connection with a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the impugned judgment had been delivered by the Special Judge before the amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, whereby the provisions of Section 350, Cri.P.C. have been made applicable to the proceedings before the Special Judge. The above decision of the Supreme Court is specifically on the point as to whether the provisions of Section 350 of the Code were applicable to proceedings before the Special Judge before the aforesaid amendment of the said Act of 1952. So the decision in this case is of no avail to the present case before me, as the trial of this case commenced and was concluded only before Magistrates. In the other two cases the trial was before Sessions Judges. The provisions of Section 350 apply to Magistrates and not to the Sessions Judges and the decisions in these two cases are on that context, and so they are not at all relevant for the present case.
8. Mr. Mohapatra could not show if the complainant was really prejudiced any way by the writing of the judgment on the evidence already recorded by the predecessor-in-office. Nothing could be made out to show that further examination of any of the witnesses, whose evidence had already been recorded, was necessary in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the Magistrate, by delivering the judgment on the evidence already recorded by the predecessor-in-office has not committed any illegality.
9. The Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the complainant was inimically disposed towards the accused persons, for several reasons, prior to the occurrence. The complainant has admitted that he had quarrels with the accused persons on many previous occasions and that he had several litigations with them. It is also seen from the deposition of the complainant that he was not pulling on well with the persons serving in his own department for several reasons.
10. With regard to the occurrence proper, there is no other evidence, except that of the complainant's own uncorroborated testimony. P. W. 3, the only other witness duly examined in this case, merely testifies to the fact, that the complainant had some injuries on his person when he examined the complainant on 17.3.1967. From his evidence, the complainant's case against the accused persons is not substantiated. The Court below rightly has not placed confidence on the sole testimony of the complainant. which does not get any corroboration from any other source, except the fact that he sustained some injuries on or about the alleged time of occurrence. As there is no convincing evidence to connect the accused persons with the occurrence, the order of acquittal passed by the Court below is perfectly justified and correct, and I do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid order of acquittal.
There is. therefore, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.