J.N. Takru, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by Krishna Kumar against the revisional order of the learned Addl. District Magistrate (J) Kanpur refusing to direct the learned Magistrate to frame a charge Under Section 325 IPC.
(2.) IT appears that the Applicant lodged a report on the basis of which a case Under Sections 323, 426, 504 and 506 IPC was registered against the opposite parties. However, when the Applicant got his injuries examined and it was found on X -ray that one of them, namely, injury No. 5 was grievous, he submitted the X -ray report to the Station Officer, whereupon the offence Under Section 323 IPC was converted to Section 325 IPC. After completing the investigation the police submitted a charge sheet Under Sections 325, 426, 504 and 506 IPC against the opposite parties. Sri M.C. Singh the learned Magistrate who was seized of the case, however, framed a charge Under Section 325 IPC only and after examining three prosecution witnesses and one witness Under Section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure and considering their evidence, he converted the charge Under Section 325 IPC to Section 323 IPC and ordered a summary trial. The complainant feeling aggrieved went up in revision to the lower revisional court and when he failed to get his redress there, he preferred the aforesaid revision in this Court. On behalf of the Applicant it was contended that as the learned Magistrate hid before him the evidence of two doctors to show that the complainant had sustained a grievous injury, he erred in law in disregarding it in preference to the evidence of the court witness and his own observation of the X -ray plates. In other words his contention was that as there was prima facie evidence of grievous injury, the learned Magistrate should not have converted the charge Under Section 325 to Section 323 IPC, especially when on the prosecution failing to establish the major offence, he could have convicted and sentenced the opposite party for the minor offence. On behalf of the opposite parties a preliminary objection was taken that the revision was liable to summary dismissal as the Applicant had no locus standi to file it and reliance for it was placed on the observation of the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar (?). I do not agree as in my opinion all that this case lays down is that in ordinary circumstance a private party has no locus standi to file a revision but in exceptional circumstances he can do so. Thus what we have to see in the present case is whether there are any exceptional circumstances justifying this Court's interference in revision.
(3.) NOW the true legal position in a case like the present, appears to me, to be that if a learned Magistrate has prima facie evidence, to prove an offence, then, unless that evidence is on the face of it impossible of acceptance, he should ordinarily proceed on its basis, leaving its weighing to be done when the entire evidence has cone before him. Thus in the present case it was not proper, even if it was not illegal, for the learned Magistrate to have ignored the evidence of two responsible medical officers at this initial stage and to have converted the charge from a major offence to a minor offence, especially as in the event of their evidence being subsequently found reliable it would not be possible to convict the opposite parties of the major offence. The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is consequently liable to result in failure of justice. I Accordingly, find it very difficult to support the order of the learned Magistrate. I, therefore, quash it and direct him to frame a charge Under Section 325 IPC and to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. I wish, however, to make it clear that nothing that I have said above should be taken as an expression of my view on the merits of the case and the learned Magistrate is free to form his opinion on the evidence which comes before him. The revision is accordingly allowed in the terms mentioned above.;