M.H. Beg, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against an acquittal by an Honorary Magistrate, 1st Class, Muziffarnager on 8 -8 -1966 from charges framed upon the complaint filed by the Appellant. The learned Magistrate who tried the case came to the conclusion that the injuries on the body of the complainant Appellant and his brother, which were 19 in number, were inflicted over the theft of Barai in the field of the complainant. He also came to the conclusion that the defence version that the 19 injuries, including a fracture of the bone, had been sustained by the complainant and his brother in the manner sought to be proved by producing some defence witnesses, had not been established. The prosecution version was that the incident took place at the field of the complainant at about 10 A.M. on 1 -3 -1966. The Magistrate framed charges against seven accused persons only of offences punishable Under Section 323 and 147 and also Under Section 325/149 IPC.
(2.) THE prosecution allegation was that the accused had beaten the complainant and his brother because they objected to theft of Barai and had taken away Barai from the field of the complainant after beating them. As the findings of the Magistrate shows that there was credible evidence to support the view that such an occurrence took place, he should have acted under the provisions of Section 347 Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows: 347. (1) If in any inquiry before a Magistrate, or in any trial before a Magistrate, before signing judgment, it appears to him at any stage of the "proceedings that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session or High Court and if he is empowered to commit for trial, he shall commit the accused under the provisions hereinbefore contained. (2) If such Magistrate is not empowered to commit for trial, he shall proceed Under Section 346. It is true that the learned Magistrate, in the earlier part of his judgment, has found minor discrepancies between the statements of the prosecution witnesses. But, his conclusions and the evidence in the case show that it was possible for another court to take a different view. If this was the position and the allegations made constituted an offence Under Section 395 IPC, the Magistrate should not have taken it upon himself to try the offence. He should have sent the case to the court of Sessions which had had jurisdiction to try such an offence.
(3.) MR . Mandhyan, appearing for the Respondents, contended that the evidence was unreliable and that a long time had elapsed since the occurrence. He also contended that the offence of dacoity was, if at all, a technical one and that the real cause of the dispute was enmity between the two sides. All these are matters which can be raised at the trial. All that is being decided here is that the learned Magistrate could not clutch at jurisdiction on the conclusions reached by him.;