In Re: Rudra Gowd and ors.

- order1. the question referred to us is whether a magistrate who has discharged an accused person under section 259, cr.p.c., can re-entertain a fresh complaint on the same facts. the accused are not represented.2. in chinnathambi v. salla gurusawmi chetty i.l.r. (1904) m. 310 it was held by sir arnold white, c.j., sitting as a single judge, that a magistrate has such a power. in emperor v. chinna kaliappa gounden i.l.r. (1905) m. 126 the question for decision was whether it was competent to a magistrate after dismissing a complaint under section 203 to re-hear the complaint when such order of dismissal has not been set aside by a higher court. the decision of the majority of the full bench was that a magistrate had power to re-hear the complaint. it was further observed by sir arnold white, c. j., that as regards the point which had been under consideration ho distinction could be drawn between an order under section 203, cr.p.c., and an order under section 253 or 259, cr.p.c. with this observation we agree. we, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative.