Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 435, 439, 253(2)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435, 439 & 253(2)-Revision-Order passed by lower Court short and brief-By itself not enough to show that Court passing such order did not apply its mind to facts of case -Lower appellate Court setting aside discharge order passed by Magistrate under S. 253(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-Order of lower appellate Court showing that it had heard parties and perused entire record -Revision of such order on grounds that it was short and gave no reasons-Rejected. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 252 & 253 Discharge-Magistrate's power to discharge accused without taking all evidence that a complainant wishes to produce-Discretionary Magistrate, however, cannot cut short proceedings or stifle prosecution by refusing to summon any prosecution witness -Each case to be decided on its own facts. Although a Magistrate has no doubt a discretion under clause (2) of section 253, Cr. P. C. to discharge the accused without taking all the evidence that the complainant wishes to produce, this does not mean that he can cut short the proceed ings or stifle the prosecution by refusing to summon any of the witnesses which the complainant wants to examine under the Criminal Procedure Code. Such duty is cast on the Magistrate to examine all the witnesses can be seen from the clear language of section 252, Cr. P. C. Subsection (1) of section 253, Cr. P. C. also makes it incumbent on the Magistrate to record all the evidence before he discharges the accused under section 2530). Sub section (2) is, however, an exception and can be invoked only in cases where the charge appears to be groundless. The complaint against the accused contained clear allega tions of deception and fraud but the Magistrate without examining the material witnesses who could prove the guilt came to the conclusion that the case against the accused was false and consequently discharged him under section 253, Cr. P. C. Held: In view of the clear allegations of deception and fraud mentioned in the complaint this could not be considered to be a case of the nature falling under section 253(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and it was a fit case…