Skip to content


In Re: Bola Achanna Kamthi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad178; (1942)2MLJ554
AppellantIn Re: Bola Achanna Kamthi
Excerpt:
- .....tantamount to a review application, which the magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant.2. as the accused was only discharged, there was nothing to prevent the complainant from filing a fresh complaint; and if he does so, the complaint must be disposed of in the same way as a first complaint. if the magistrate has already considered the matter on its merits, he would ordinarily dismiss the second application, but he cannot refuse to consider it on its merits if he has not already done so. the stationary magistrate had therefore jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's second complaint and he should have done so.3. the matter went in revision to the district magistrate, who seemed to think that the sub-magistrate disposed of the second complaint on its merits, but it is pretty clear.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Karkal, charging the accused with certain offences for which the accused could be tried only under the warrant procedure. Notice was ordered to the accused, and the case was posted to a certain date for the appearance of the accused. On that day, the petitioner was absent, and so the Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction under Section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code and discharged the accused. The petitioner thereupon filed another complaint which the Magistrate refused to accept for two reasons; one was that the complainant appeared at 5 p.m., which was after the hour at which papers are received in Court, and the other was that an application to receive a complaint was tantamount to a review application, which the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant.

2. As the accused was only discharged, there was nothing to prevent the complainant from filing a fresh complaint; and if he does so, the complaint must be disposed of in the same way as a first complaint. If the Magistrate has already considered the matter on its merits, he would ordinarily dismiss the second application, but he cannot refuse to consider it on its merits if he has not already done so. The Stationary Magistrate had therefore jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's second complaint and he should have done so.

3. The matter went in revision to the District Magistrate, who seemed to think that the Sub-Magistrate disposed of the second complaint on its merits, but it is pretty clear from the Magistrate's order that he did. not.

4. As there is no restriction on the number of complaints that the petitioner may file, it is not necessary for me to set aside the previous orders and direct the Stationary Sub-Magistrate to entertain the second complaint. The petitioner is at liberty to file a third complaint if he so wishes; and the Magistrate must then dispose of it according to law.


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