J.N. Takru, J. - (1.) HAJI Khairullah has filed this revision against the order of acquittal, dated 30 -9 -1964, passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Gorakhpur, in case No. 83 of 1964, State v. Mohammad Jamil.
(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to this revision, are as follows: The police of Police Station Kotwali, Gorakhpur submitted a charge -sheet, Under Section 377 IPC, against Mohammad Jamil the opposite -party - -which was received in the court of the Additional District Magistrate (J), Gorakhpur on 23 -6 -1964. On 26 -6 -1964, the learned A.D.M. (J), ordered the case to be registered and the prosecution witnesses to be summoned for 7 -7 -1964. On 7 -7 -1964, the learned A.D.M. (J) ordered that the case would proceed as an enquiry to see whether there were grounds for committing it to the Court of Session and summoned two witnesses for 29 -7 -1964. Before, however, the recording of the evidence started on 29 -7 -1964, the opposite party moved an application stating, inter alia, that as the case was also triable by a Magistrate 1st Class and there was nothing on the record to justify the case being committed to the Court of Session, it might be tried as a warrant case. The learned A.D.M. (J) allowed the application, but reserved the right to commit it to the Court of Session if, at any subsequent stage, he thought that the case was one which ought to be tried by that court. Thereafter the recording of the evidence started and continued till 26 -9 -1964. After the prosecution evidence was closed on 26 -9 -1964 and the statement of the opposite -party was recorded and his counsel made a statement that no defence evidence was to be produced, an application was moved by the Applicant that the recording of the statement of the Investigating Officer be adjourned "the question of converting the case into inquiry adopting committal proceedings and committing the case to the Court of Session, be considered at that very stage and orders be passed thereon." On this application the learned A.D.M. (J) ordered the A.P.P. to file his report and the opposite -party to submit his objection in writing and pending the filing of the above ordered the case to be listed for arguments on. 28 -9 -1964. Thereafter on the 28th and 29th September, 1964, arguments were heard, but as the learned Counsel for the complainant was not present on the latter date, the case was ordered to be listed at 10 a.m the next day for his arguments. The complainant's learned Counsel, however, did not turn up at all on 30 -9 -1964. Thereupon the learned A.D.M. (J) first took up the complainant's application, dated, 26 -9 -1964 and after considering it along with the written objections filed by the opposite -party and the report of the A.P.P. passed an order rejecting the said application. Thereafter he passed the judgment under revision acquitting the opposite -party of the offence Under Section 377, IPC. Feeling aggrieved thereby the Applicant filed a revision in the court of the Sessions Judge and when his revision there, was summarily dismissed, he preferred the aforesaid revision to this Court. On behalf of the Applicant his learned Counsel, Sri Jagdish Misra, advanced two contentions in support of this revision. His first contention was that as on 7 -7 -1964, the learned A.D.M. (J) had decided to proceed with the case as an enquiry Under Ch. XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure he had no jurisdiction to review that order and to convert the enquiry into a trial. His second contention was that as the learned A.D.M. (J) was personally interested in the case he, was, anyhow, not competent to try it. After hearing Sri Misra, I am, however, satisfied that neither of these contentions has any force. I shall, therefore, proceed, to deal with them, beginning with, the second contention, as it can be disposed of shortly.
(3.) NOW so far as the second contention is concerned, the most important thing to be noted is that, there is not a scintilla of evidence to show that the learned A.D.M. (J) had any personal interest in the instant case. The only circumstance on which this contention appears to be based is the fact that the opposite -party is the official stenographer of the District Planning Officer, Gorakhpur. However, in the absence of some thing more convincing, such a slender circumstance is hopelessly insufficient to warrant the conclusion that the A.D.M. (J) was personally interested in the case. This contention, therefore, fails.;