B.D. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision arises out of an order dated the 9th of January, 1968, passed by the ADM (J), Agra, whereby an order dated the 7th of September, 1967, passed by a Magistrate was set aside and the case in the course of which the order of the 7th of September, 1969, Had been passed was sent back to the court of the Judicial Magistrate for further enquiry. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at some length it appears manifest that the order sought to be revised by this petition must be set aside.
(2.) In order to appreciate the question which has been raised, it is necessary to recite the following facts: Sometime in 1965 the sole opposite party to this revision Baba Jamuna Das filed a complaint alleging offences Under Ss. 323/147/504/506 IPC. The accused named in the said complaint were the very same persons who are the five Applicants in this revision. Summons were issued to the aforesaid accused for an offence Under Sec. 323 IPC only and after recording the evidence led by the complainant, the learned Magistrate passed an order on the 2nd of September, 1966, wherein, after arriving at the conclusion that there was no substance in the prosecution case, the operative portion of the order passed by the learned Magistrate was recorded as follows: The accused are, therefore, discharged. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate makes it clear that he took the view that the evidence led by the complainant consisted of testimony of interested witnesses, that no independent witness had been examined, that the complainant's version was not supported by any medical evidence and that, therefore, the said version was absolutely unreliable.
(3.) Against the aforesaid order dated the 2nd of September, 1966, Baba Jamuna Das filed a revision which was dismissed by an order of the ADM (J) dated the 24th of November, 1966. The learned District Magistrate appears to have taken the view that the learned Magistrate had treated the case as a warrant case and not as a summons case and the grievance made on behalf of the complainant that the complainant had not exhausted his evidence in the case, which was coupled with 'a suggestion on complainant's behalf that remand was unnecessary as the complainant had the option of filing a fresh complaint, was accepted by the ADM with the result that he dismissed the revision observing that the complainant may, if he so desired, seek his remedy by way of a fresh complaint.;