Sikkim Court January 1978 Judgments
Kinzang Dahdul Vs. Ransul Kharga and anr.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jan-11-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1569
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Sikkim at Gangtok has reported this case under Section 438, Cr. P.C. (1898) with recommendation that the order of the learned District Magistrate dated 5th Jan. 1977 passed in Criminal Case No. 332 of 1976 discharging the accused-respondent should be set aside and the case be sent back to some other competent Magistrate for further enquiry and trial. But after hearing the petitioner-complainant and the accused respondent and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and after going through the records of case and the explanation submitted by the trying Magistrate to the learned Sessions Judge, we are of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in reporting this case to this Court under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. 1898, and that we must decline to interfere in this case.2. The case of the petitioner-complainant is that he filed a complaint against the accused-respondent before the District Magistrate, Gyalshing, alle...
Tag this Judgment!Rinzing Choda Vs. State and ors.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jan-10-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1270
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. We have heard Mr. G. L. Subba, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-complainant and the accused-respondents appearing in person and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and have perused the records of the case and we are of opinion that we cannot accept the reference and the recommendations made by the learned Sessions Judge and must decline to interfere.2. The case of the petitioner-complainant is that he lodged a complaint against the accused-respondents and two other accused persons and that after investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 325/34, of the I.P.C. against the two accused-respondents in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, West Sikkim. The learned Magistrate thereafter recorded the statements of all the witnesses produced by the prosecution numbering five in all and then without framing a charge and without giving the accused-respondents any further opportunity to cross-examine the witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›