1. The revision petition is by the complainants who moved the authorities for initiating proceedings under Section 103 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code against as many as twelve persons. A case was registered against the counter-petitioners as M.C. 13 of 1950 on the file of the Taluk First Class Magistrate, Sherthali, and the present revision is against an order terminating the proceeding. Technically the Magistrate's order, the operative portion of which is quoted below, is not correct. The learned Magistrate said:
This is a summons case and as such I order the counter-petitioners being acquitted under Section 244, Criminal P.C. and proceedings against them are discharged.
The ground on which the above order happened to be passed is that the complainants or the other witnesses for the State were not appearing in Court for the several hearings to which the case stood posted. Section 115 of the Trayancore Criminal Procedure Code is the section to which the learned Magistrate ought to have resorted to under the circumstances and not Section 244. Except for pointing out this error I do not think any interference is called for in the case.
2. The decision in Asrafali Saigal v. Nasu Sarkar AIR 1927 Cal 343, is sufficient authority for the view that in circumstances similar to those narrated in the order the Court can under Section 115, (Section 119 of the Indian Code), terminate the proceeding and discharge the persons proceeded against. The State to whom notice was issued of this revision is of the view that there is no scope for any apprehension that a breach of peace is imminent on account of the conduct of the counter-petitioners. That would seem to have been the attitude the State took in the Court below as well. The revision is hence dismissed but the disposal of the case by the Court below will be taken to be one under Section 115, Travancore Criminal P.C. The mention of Section 244, evidently due to carelessness or ignorance, has not caused any failure of justice.
3. Order accordingly.