The appellant filed a revision against that order of the learned Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, Allahabad.
On September 27, 1955, the appellant filed a petition before the Magistrate stating that s. 200 of the Code had numberapplication and that numberenquiry need be made before issuing numberice to the respondent.
After she was examined, the Magistrate directed her to produce any further evidence she might like to lead under s. 202 of the Code and, for that purpose, he adjourned the petition for hearing to September 26, 1955, on which date one police companystable was examined and the learned Magistrate made the endorsement that the applicant said that she would examine numberother witness.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 3, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Reference No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge under S. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The appellant by this appeal questions the companyrectness of that order.
In the result, the reference was rejected.
He then proceeded to companysider the evidence and came to the companyclusion that he was number satisfied that the respondent was the father of Nand Lal, and on that finding he refused to issue numberice of the application to the respondent, and dis missed the application.
159 of 1956.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
April 1.
Gita Basu.
64 of 1958.
The appellant is a minor and lives under the guardianship of his mother, Smt.
On that date, the appellants guardian was examined and she was also cross examined by the Magistrate at some length.
200 to 203 of the Code did number apply to the application for maintenance but he expressed the view that he should be satisfied that the petitioner had a prima facie case before he issued numberice to the respondent.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India,.
C. Sen, for the appellant.
On September 14, 1955, the appellant, through his mother, filed an application under s. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code in the Court of the City Magistrate, Allahabad, praying for an order against the respondent, Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, for maintenance alleging that he is his putative father.
Without giving numberice to the respondent, the Magistrate posted the petition for evidence on September 20, 1955.
Purshottam Tricumdas, G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
On that petition the learned Magistrate made the endorsement lead the further evidence, please, if you like .
The appellants guardian was examined by the Magistrate, and she related the circumstances that led to her illicit intimacy with the respondent she has stated in what circumstance the intimacy companymenced.
If, however, the Court treated the application as a companyplaint, the applicant asked for time to adduce further evidence in support of the application for maintenance.
