KINZANG DAHDUL Vs. RANSUL KHARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Sessions Judge of Sikkim at Gangtok has reported this case under Section 438, Cr. P. C. (1898) with recommendation that the order of the learned District Magistrate dated 5th Jan. 1977 passed in Criminal Case No. 332 of 1976 discharging the accused-respondent should be set aside and the case be sent back to some other competent Magistrate for further enquiry and trial. But after hearing the petitioner-complainant and the accused respondent and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and after going through the records of case and the explanation submitted by the trying Magistrate to the learned Sessions Judge, we are of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in reporting this case to this Court under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. 1898, and that we must decline to interfere in this case.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner-complainant is that he filed a complaint against the accused-respondent before the District Magistrate, Gyalshing, alleging that the respondent had tres-passed into his cardamom field and removed cardamoms therefrom and the District Magistrate forwarded the com-plaint to the O/c, Gyalshing Police Station for investigation after treating the complaint as the First Information Report. The accused-respondent was thereafter produced before the District Magistrate on 29-9-76 and was released on bail. The case of the petitioner is that on that very day, i. e. 29-9-1976, a chargesheet under Section 447/379, I. P. C. was also filed against the accused-respondent and that the said fact was also noted by the District Magistrate in the order passed by him on the same day. But the petitioner alleges, that notwithstanding submission of the charge-sheet on 29-9-1976 under Section 447/379 of the I. P. C. the learned District Magistrate discharged the accused-respondent on the ground that the police submitted a final report in the said ease alleging that no evidence was available to justify any criminal prosecution and that the dispute between the parties as disclosed during the investigation was only of a civil nature.

(3.) IF in a criminal case a final report is submitted the police asserting that no material could be discovered disclosing any offence, the order of the trial Magistrate discharging the accused and/or dropping the proceeding is only usual and is in no way irregular. But, as already noted, the case of the petitioner is that a charge-Sheet under Section 447/379 of the Indian Penal Code was in fact submitted on 29-9-1976 and the submission of the charge-sheet was duly noted by the District Magistrate in his order of the same date recorded in the order sheet and that being so, there could be no occasion for discharging the accused and dropping the proceedings on the basis of a later final report, as alleged, and that in doing so the learned District Magistrate has committed a manifest error of law justifying intervention by this Court in revision.