S.R.BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THIS revision (previously application under Section 482, Cr. P.C.) is directed against the summoning order issued in a private complaint case under Section 500, I.P.C. Imputations alleged to have been made by the Revisionist are: "SAALE TUM CHOR HO BAIMAN HO". Revisionist is a Deputy Manager in Regional Office of Food Corporation of India. He has come with plea of denial of the imputa­tions and has further aressted that he being a public servant under Section 21 I.P.C. Sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. was necessary. Then it is urged on his behalf that the complaint is barred by Regulation 49 of the Regulations framed by the Food Corporation of India known as the Food Corportion of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, I need not express opinion on the legal burs. It would suffice to say that the question of denial can be decided by the Magistrate himself after evidence. The legal bars pleaded can also be decided by the Magistrate on an application for discharge under Section 245 (2).Cr. P.C. It should not be ignored that opposite party (accused) in a complaint case has a right of discharge at any stage and even before any evidence under Section 244, Cr. P.C. is adduced. When the Magis­trate himself can decide a point arising in the case and can give adequate relief, it would not be just and proper to entertain a Revision and call the opposite party to the High Court. So far as lively harassment to the revisionist is concerned, that can be reduced by exempting his personal attendance before the Magistrate. Since the revisionist is a Gazetted Officer of the Food Corporation of India looking to his dignity the Magistrate can exempt his personal attendance under Section 205 Cr.P.C.
(2.) THERE is an application for condonation of delay. But in view of the above observa­tions no order need be passed on that applica­tion. Revision is finally disposed of wit the direction that the Magistrate shall permit revisionist Kedar Nath Dhanwik to appear through counsel according to Section 205, Cr. P.C. The revisionist shall be at liberty to claim discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. at any stage and even before any evidence under Section 244, Cr.P.C. is adduced. If such an applica­tion is filed, the Magistrate concerned shall dispose of the some within three months. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the revisionist on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.;