CHIRANJI LAL ALIAS CBIRANJI LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the 'Code') is directed against the order dated 22nd May, 1978, passed by Sri Jagdish Pd. Singh, Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Criminal Revision No. 329 of 1975 by which the order dated 28th May, 1975, passed by Sri S. N. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, First class, Patna, in case No. 1060 (2) 73, has been set aside, and it has been Tr. No. 2033/75 directed that the case against the petitioner shall proceed in accordance with law.

(2.) The relevant facts are that on 16. 11. 1973, Sri Ramadhar Singh, Inspector of weights and Measures, Mithapur, Patna, filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Sub -divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna, against the petitioner charging him of violation of the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Bihar Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1959(hereinafter referred to as the "Weights and Measures Act), which is an offence punishable under Sec. 25 of the Weights and Measures Act. After cognizance was taken, summons were issued against the petitioners who appeared before Sri S. N. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, on 28.5.1975 and prayed that he should be acquitted since the complaint petition disclosed no offence. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the complaint petition and after hearing the public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Weights and Measures Department as well as the petitioner's lawyer came to the conclusion that the complaint petition disclosed no offence and hence the petitioner was acquitted. Being aggrieved by that order, the State through the Weights and Measures Department filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Patna, which was heard by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, who by the impugned order set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate against this order, the petitioner has filed the present application.

(3.) In support of this application, it has been urged by the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the petitioner inasmuch as the complaint petition disclosed no offence and the revision Court below has erred in setting aside that order and directing that the trial should proceed in accordance with law.