( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Criminal revision No. 221 of 1997, dated 29-1-2000 allowing the revision filed by respondents 1 and 2 and setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Raibag in Summary Case No. 31 of 1995, dated 21-2-1997.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents for offences under Sections 147, 148, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the I. P. C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Raibag. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal procedure Code to the jurisdictional P. S. I, by his order dated 9-8-1994. After completing the investigation, 'b'-report was submitted by the police to the Court in the year 1996. The learned Magistrate accepted the 'b' report on 27-3-1996. On coming to know about the acceptance of the 'b' report, the revision petitioner/complainant sent a registered letter dated 20-2-1997 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, raibag seeking for permission to prosecute the complainant. The learned Magistrate, after considering the matter directed notice to the complainant to appear before the court and to make his submissions, if any. The said order passed by the learned magistrate has been challenged by respondents 1 and 2 in Criminal Revision no. 221 of 1997 before the learned Sessions judge, Belgaum. The learned Sessions judge by the impugned order held that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the earlier order passed by him and to reopen the matter since the said Court has no inherent power to take any such steps. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, allowed the said revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate directing issue of notice on 21-2-1997 to the complainant and has also quashed all further proceedings in the case. The legality of the said order has been challenged now by the complainant in the present proceedings.

( 3 ) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner/complainant has not been served with the notice of the 'b' report, submitted by the police, to the learned Magistrate after completing the investigation on the complaint filed by him which was referred to the police and it is for this reason, the learned magistrate after the complainant brought the said fact to the notice of the Court by addressing a letter by registered post, though it fit to hear the complaint and ordered for issue of notice to him and that respondents 1 and 2 have no locus standi to challenge the said order before the learned sessions Judge and the learned Sessions judge ought to have dismissed the revision petition filed on the said ground itself. It is further contended by him that the earlier order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the 'b' report filed, does not amount to an order of discharge or acquittal of the accused as is clarified by the Division bench of this Court in an earlier decision of this Court in J. Alexander vs. State of Karnataka by the Superintendent of Police, City Division, karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, wherein it was held that,-"at the stage of acceptance of 'b' report, all that happens is that the Court accepts the 'b' report on the basis of the material as available then. Even if further fresh material is discovered which calls for further investigation and if such investigation is not allowed then such course would be stultification of law and logic resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is difficult to assume that all facts could be revealed in one stroke. An order accepting the 'b' report is not an immunity granted to an accused person, but merely a temporary relief subject to further investigation in the event good and fresh mat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document