AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Verma, J.—Although this Court is reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal yet on account of the serious illegalities committed by the trial Court, I am afraid, I shall have to set aside the order of acquittal passed by it u/s 247, Criminal P.C. To begin with, the charge framed against the accused was one u/s 427, I.P.C. This charge was never amended till for the first time we hear in the final order that the Magistrate thinks that the offence committed possibly came u/s 426, I.P.C., and after having come to that conclusion he acquits the accused u/s 247, Criminal P.C., because the complainant does not happen to be present on the date on which the Magistrate was to pronounce judgment.
It appears, as pointed out by Mr. Yasin Yunus, that he held a local inquiry and evidently it is upon the basis of that local enquiry that he has come to the conclusion that the offence made out was one u/s 426, I.P.C., but even with regard to this local enquiry I see no indication in the order sheet as to when the Magistrate made up his mind to go to the place and whether he informed the parties about the local inspection or not. The inspection note of course is dated 4th September 1938.
He has therefore utilized his observation in the course of the local enquiry for coming to a certain finding. As the local enquiry was held without any notice to the parties (so far as one can see from the order sheet) and as the charge, which was framed u/s 427, I.P.C., was, in order to utilize the provisions of Section 247, Criminal P.C., suddenly deemed to be a charge u/s 426, I.P.C., on the basis of the observations made in the local inquiry, I am afraid the cumulative effect of all these is that the last order which is an order of acquittal u/s 247, Criminal P.C., is vitiated and therefore it must be set aside.
The case should be sent back to the Magistrate to be disposed of in accordance with law.