S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) THIS revision is by Inderjit, one of the accused in this case, and it is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in revision reversing the order of discharge passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are very few and simple, Naresh Kumar complainant -respondent filed a complaint that Inderjit and Dharam Paul, were the Secretary and Cashier, respectively, of the Ram Lila Committee, Ghudani Khan, which was previously unregistered. On 11th May, 1978, at about 4 p m, the Petitioner and the three other accused were present near a dharamshala of Loodo ke -Patti The President and the Secretary of the new Society demanded register etc. from the accused, who started abusing the complainant and in that process, the accused caused some injuries to him. It is alleged that the complainant was medically examined and was found to have 7 simple injuries on his person. Since no action have been taken by the police, the present complaint was filed on 11.7.1978 After preliminary evidence, the Petitioner and Dharam Paul were summoned for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the complainant examined Lai Chand and Vidya Sagar, P Ws., besides himself coming into the witness box. The learned Magistrate after having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that summed his conclusion in paragraph No. 10 of the order in the following terms: The motive for causing injuries by the accused was that the complainant wanted the accused to hand over books of the society but the accused refused to hand over the books. It shows that both the parties were on hostile terms and the complainant and the accused were arrested by the police under Sections 107/151 of the Cr. P. C on 11 6 1978. This complaint teems to have been filed by the complainant in order to put pressure upon the accused to return the record and cash of the society. If the occurrence would have taken place as alleged by the complainant then Vidya Sagar, Lal Chand and Pardeep Kumar, who are the witnesses of the occurrence must have rescued the complainant from the accused Inderjit and Dharam Paul and in the scuffle, they must have also received some injuries Since Vidya Sagar Lal Chand and Pardeep Kumar did not receive any injuries from the accused, nor the accused received any injury from the hands of Naresb Kumar, it shows that the complainant did not receive the injuries as alleged by him. Taking the view that the prosecution did not succeed to make out a case against the accused which, if unrebutted, would warrant their conviction, the learned Magistrate passed an order discharging the accused under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the New Code) This was the order that -was challenged in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversing the order of the trial Magistrate is the subject matter of this revision.
(3.) BEFORE proceeding with the discussion regarding the merits of the case as revealed by the evidence on the record I should at this stage like to dispose of the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the complainant -respondent with respect to jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the order that has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision Reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsel on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sesha Reddy v. Ghina Pullaiah, A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 595, where the view taken is as follows: Where an order is made by the Sessions Judge in the exercise of the discretion vested in him under Section 436, Code of Criminal Procedure (1898), it is only where the order is shown to be manifestly unjust or perverse that the High Court can possibly interfere in its revisional jurisdiction.;