THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1676 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein filed a private complaint against respondents 2 to 6 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 330, 348, 324 and 506 (2) read with 34 IPC and the same was numbered as C.F.No.1188 of 2010 in unnumbered CC of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani. The learned Magistrate by his docket order, dated 01.07.2010, dismissed the said complaint. Hence, the complainant approached this Court and filed the present Revision. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate while dismissing the said complaint did not follow the procedure contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Having considered the said submission, this Court looked into the docket order, dated 01.07.2010. The said docket order reads as under: - “Heard. It is the contention of the complainant that they were arrested by the accused persons in P.S., Manthani in Cr.No.112 of 2010 on 31.05.2010 and tortured by the police. It is seen that the petitioner along with others was arrested and produced on remand on 01.06.2010. It is seen that on perusal of records, the petitioner complained about ill treatment by police at the time of remand and he was referred to medical examination. The medical certificate is filed stating that no injuries are found. It is seen that the petitioner at the time of remand complained ill treatment and he did not state the nature of ill treatment and in this petition he contended that he was beaten blue and black with sticks on his two legs. But, in the medical certificate it is clearly mentioned that there are no external injuries. It is the alleged ill treatment is set to have occurred on 31.05.2010 night hours, but the complaint is filed on 16.06.2010 after expiry of 16 days. For all the above discussed reasons it is held that no prima facie case is found in this matter under the referred sections in the complaint under Sections 330, 348, 324 and 506 (2) read with 34 IPC.” From the said docket order, it is clear that the Magistrate had not examined the complainant or other witnesses alleged to be present at the time of occurrence and simply heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and dismissed the said complaint. Hence, this Court while ordering notice before admission, on 21.09.2010, called for an explanation from the said Magistrate. The said learned Magistrate submitted a detailed explanation, dated 25.10.2010, which is as under: - “I humbly submit that the criminal complaint was filed before me by the petitioner herein on 16.06.2010 against the respondents herein under Sections 330, 348, 324 and 506 (2) read with 34 IPC. The said complaint was returned by the office for certain objections on the grounds of delay in filing the complaint and the same was resubmitted on same date that is on 17.06.2010 and after hearing the counsel it was posted for hearing of the accused counsel on 22.06.2010. On 22.06.2010, the arguments of the petitioner counsel were heard and the case was accordingly posted for consideration on 29.06.2010. Since I was on casual leave on 29.06.2010, the case was posted to 10.07.2010 by the office. I further submit that the complaint is made alleging that the accused was ill treated and tortured by the respondents for extorting confession to implicate A-5 in Cr.No.112 of 2010. It is seen that the petitioner was produced before this Court by the police in Cr.No.112 of 2010 on 01.06.2010 and when the complainant told about the alleged torture by the police, he was immediately referred to medical examination by the police constable to the Civil Assistant Surgeon at Manthani. The Medical Officer who examined the petitioner has given a certificate that no external injuries are found which is also forming part and parcel of record in Cr.No.112 of 2010. I further submit that due to over sight the statement of the petitioner could not be recorded in C.F.No.1188 of 2010 in the complaint filed by him against the respondents under Section 200 Cr.P.C. due to rush of the work. I further submit that even at the time of hearing the accused counsel also, he simply submitted the arguments and he also did not bring the said fact to the notice of the Court at the time of arguments and even on the date when the case was posted for consideration that statement is not recorded. I submit that only due to over sight I did not notice before passing orders that the sworn in statement of the petitioner has been not recorded and not for any other reasons. I humbly pray that the said act done by me in not recording the statement of the petitioner before passing impugned order dated 01.07.2010 be kindly excused and I undertake that I will be very cautious and careful in future while dealing with such type of cases.” Apparently, the impugned order, in my considered view, is illegal. The said Magistrate has also offered an explanation stating that due to over sight and because of several other circumstances as stated supra, he could not record the sworn statement of the complainant. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani shall take up C.F.No.1188 of 2010 to his file, follow the procedure and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. __________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 26th October 2010 dr