VITTAL RAO MUDALIAR Vs. SUNDARARAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiru-pattur in Dis. No. 1536 of 1958.

(2.) A complaint was laid before the Sub-Magistrate, Ambur, alleging that the accused has misappropriated certain collections made by him in a theatre. The complaints, no doubt, incidentally referred to certain false entries in the cash book, -which he had maintained. But. the complainant asked the court to take action for an offence under Section 408, IPC The summons was, therefore, issued to the accused for this offence. After the accused appeared and when the trial started and in the course of the chief examination of the first witness for the prosecution, the witness deposed about the falsification of the entries as well. On this evidence the Sub-Magistrate thought it fit very rightly to make a reference to the Sub' Divisional Magistrate under Section 346 (1), Criminal P. C, as the Sub-Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence under Section 477. IPC

(3.) THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate has in an extraordinary order passed by him held that the Sub-Magistrate should have taken cognisance of it even in the first instance and referred back the matter to him saying that the stage at which he referred was not the proper one. He further seems to hold the opinion that taking the case on file for an offence under Section 408, IPC is with a view to dispose it of himself even though the facts mentioned in the complaint disclosed an offence under Section 477-A, I. P. C. and returned the records to the Sub-Magistrate to dispose it of according to law.