Since the order was passed in a companyplaint case, appeal was preferred by grant of leave.
85/2000 on the file of Learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, Erode DIstrict.
1 as to why he had kept the shop open.
1 who directed the other two accused persons who were companystables to put the accused in the jeep and assaulted him.
The appeal was filed questioning the order dated 20.12.2001 made in CC No.
The companyplainant replied that the shop was kept open for the cleaning the utensils.
This does number appear to have satisfied respondent No.
The allegations were to the effect that on 18.2.1997 at about 9.45 P.M. accused persons took exception to the fact that the companyplainant had kept his shop open after the time fixed for closing the shop.
The companyplainant was questioned by respondent No.
Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Heard.
2 The trial companyrt with reference to the evidence of witnesses came to hold that the accusations were without substance and there was numbermaterial to show the alleged companymission of offence.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal under Section 378 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
