S.N. Katju, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision which is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Etawah by which he affirmed the order of Sri B. Lal, a Magistrate of Etawah discharging the opposite party Sumer Chand Vatsa Under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) THE complainant Prithvi Singh lodged a complaint against Sumer Chand Vatsa, S.O., Kotwali, Etawah Under Sections 220, 330 and 354 of the IPC. It was alleged that on 26 -10 -63 the complainant was standing in front of the door of his house at about 8 a.m. when Sumer Chand Vatsa along with some police officers and constables and one Ghan Shyam Singh, a nephew of Tej Singh who led a rival group in the town of Etawah, came and arrested the complainant without any justification and started beating him with shoes and fists. "The women of the complainant's house protested but they were also rebuked and were pushed aside. Thus the modesty of the women was out raged". The complainant was then, according to him, taken to the Kotwali and was beaten on the way with shoes, fists and kicks. He was again beaten in the Kotwali and tortured "so he might confess his guilt under the Gambling Act" and he was forced to sign some papers. He was later released on bail which was granted by the City Magistrate in the evening. It was contended on behalf of Sumer Chand Vatsa that the entire case of the complainant was false and that he was arrested for gambling and during the course of the arrest he had received some injuries. The injuries of the complainant were examined by the Civil Surgeon of Etawah and he found some contusions and abrasions on the body of the complainant. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence produced on behalf of the complainant and also took into consideration the Evidence led for the defence and came to the conclusion that there was "no sufficient ground for committing the accused to the Court of Session." He, therefore, discharged the opposite party Sumer Chand Vatsa. As mentioned above, the order of the learned Magistrate was affirmed on revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Etawah.
(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the complainant that the Magistrate had exceeded his powers Under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in refusing to commit the opposite party to the Court of Session. It was contended that the Magistrate had only to see whether a prima facie case against the opposite party existed and it was beyond his powers to decide the case after taking into consideration the entire evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution as also on behalf of the defence.;