The papers were sent back to the Magistrate on January 7, 1975 and by his order dated January 27, 1975 the Magistrate was informed that the appellant did number want to adduce any further evidence.
his predecessor who had in fact first decided to hold an inquiry himself and after recording the evidence had decided to pass an order under s. 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 16 12 75 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No.
The police of Gokak Police Station submitted a charge sheet against Nagappa Giddannavar and seven others under ss.
Along with this petition the respondents filed a number of documents including the companyies of the petitions sent by the appellant to the Chief Minister and the Speaker.
The facts of the case lie within a very narrow companypass and although the High Court has taken great pains to write a laboured judgment the point involved is short and simple and does number merit a detailed discussion.
While the application was pending before the High Court, respondents 1 2 filed a petition before the High Court praying for an early hearing of the revision and for vacation of the stay order.
This revision was allowed by the High Court by the impugned order against which special leave was granted by this Court at the instance of the appellant.
The matter was accordingly posted for argument on February 7, 1975 and after hearing the arguments and companysidering the evidence recorded by the Magistrate he by his order dated February 11, 1975 directed process to be issued against respondents 1 2 under s. 204 1 b of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
302, 114, 148, 147 and other sections on the allegations that on July 19, 1973 the accused persons had waylaid and murdered one Nagappa son of the appellant in this Court.
The appellant, who had filed the report before the police does number appear to have bean satisfied with the investigation by the police which according to her was tainted and had suppressed some important materials, filed a companyplaint before the Magistrate at Gokak on October 4, 1973 alleging that respondents 1 2 had in fact abetted the offence of murder companymitted by the other accused but as they were influential persons their names were deliberately left out in the report as also in the dying declaration.
The new Magistrate took up the matter on November 26, 1973 and after hearing the companyplainant he adjourned the case to December 3, 1973 and on this day he directed that further inquiry may be made by Superintendent of Police, Belgaum and he accordingly referred the matter for inquiry and report to the Superintendent of Police, Belgaum asking him to submit his report within six weeks.
99 of 1976.
He then adjourned the case for argument for October 12, 1973.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On a companysideration of this evidence the Magistrate was satis fied that a prima facie case against respondents 1 and 2 was made out and he accordingly issued process against them.
Respondents 1 2 then preferred a revision against this order to the High Court under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the order of the Magistrate may be quashed.
On that day arguments were heard but before any order companyld be passed the Magistrate who had recorded the evidence was transferred and therefore the case had to be adjourned.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which it set aside the order of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gokak issuing process against respondents 1 2 in exercise of his discretion under s. 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
50 of 1975.
Thereafter the case was posted for October 10, 1973 for arguments and further evidence, if any.
C. Bhandare, Mrs. S. Bhandare, M. S. Narsimhan Sharma, and A. K. Mathur for Respondents I and 2.
B. Datar and R. B. Datar for the Appellant.
On receiving the companyplaint on October 4, 1973 the Magistrate decided to hold an inquiry into the companyplaint himself and in pursuance of his decision he recorded some evidence on October 8, 1973.
The appellant filed an application in revision to the High Court on December 11, 1973 against the order of the Magistrate dated December 3, 1973 referring the matter to the Superintendent of Police for inquiry and report.
On October 10, 1973 the Magistrate observed that six witnesses had been examined and the evidence recorded so far was sufficient for the Court to determine the question as to whether or number process should be issued to respondents 1 2.
Before however he companyld pass any order he was succeeded by the present Magistrate.
Narayan Nettar for Respondent No.
