STATE OF U.P. Vs. PARSADI
LAWS(ALL)-1965-9-38
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 13,1965

STATE OF U.P. Appellant
VERSUS
PARSADI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM NARAIN V/S. MOOL CHAND [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

J.N. Takru, J. - (1.)This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an order of acquittal passed by the SDM, Jalesar, and wrongly described by him as an order of discharge as will be shown in due course.
(2.)It appears that on the 8th May, 1963, a charge sheet under Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act, was received from the police against the Respondent, in the court of the SDM, Jalesar. On receipt of this charge sheet the learned Magistrate fixed the 14th May 1963 for the recording of the statement of the Respondent, and the 20th May 1963 for the recording of the evidence of the prosecution. On the 14th May 1963 the statement of the Respondent was recorded and a charge under Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act was framed against him. When the ca e was called out on the next date fixed in it, viz. the 20th May 1963, the Respondent along with his learned Counsel was present, but the two prosecution witnesses who had been served for that day, viz. Shamshul Haq and Sada Ram, SI were not present and the summons of the remaining prosecution witnesses had not been received back. Thereupon the learned Magistrate discharged the Respondent holding that there was no evidence against him. Hence this appeal.
(3.)As stated earlier the learned Magistrate described his order as one of discharge. It is an undisputed fact that the procedure applicable to the trial of cases under Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act, is that applicable to warrant cases under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec. 251A(2), which falls under that Chapter, is the only Sec. which provides for the discharge of the accused in a case started on a police report. It lays down that.
If, upon consideration of all the documents referred to in Sec. 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge him.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.