K. Hema, J.

1. Some of the accused in a forest case when produced before the Trial Court made a statement to the Magistrate that they were assaulted etc. They sought for medical examination. The learned Magistrate recorded their statement, sent them for medical examination, took cognizance of the offence under S.323 IPC against the forest officials and issued summons to them. The forest officials entered appearance and they were enlarged on bail also. Thereafter, it was pointed out by the injured-respondents, who entered appearance through counsel, that there was some procedural irregularity since the sworn statements of the injured were not taken etc. Learned Magistrate after being satisfied that sworn statement was not taken, passed an order acquitting the accused, recording that the cognizance is withdrawn.

2. The Magistrate did not stop there. He was pleased to proceed with the case, took sworn statement of the injured, and issued fresh summons to the accused. At the second time, one more offence was included and some more accused were added up. The challenge in this case is that the entire procedure adopted by learned Magistrate is wrong and contrary to provisions of law. The Magistrate having once acquitted the accused after recording that the complaint is withdrawn, there is a bar under S. 300 in proceeding against the accused, it is contended. No doubt that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners do appear, on the first blush, to be quite impressive. I shall consider each and every point in detail.

3. Before that, facts are to be stated as follows: The petitioners are forest officials. Respondents 1 to 5 are accused in a forest offence (OR No. 13/1999) and they are the injured in this case. They were arrested and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devikulam in connection with the above crime. On their production, they made a statement to the Court that they were beaten up and ill-treated by forest officials and consequently, they developed stomach ache, chest pain and other complaints. One of them, namely, respondent No. 4 stated that he wanted to go to hospital. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also identified the forest officials who allegedly assaulted them and identified them by pointing out those persons from the Court hail. These were all done in the proceedings in O.R. 13 of 1999.

4. On the basis of the statement made by respondents 1 to 5, the Court suo motu registered a case and cognizance of offences under Ss.343, 323 and 34 IPC was taken. A case was taken on file as C.C.140 of 1999 against the forest officials. The accused entered appearance. They were released on bail. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 5 herein filed vakalath and it appears that it was submitted by their counsel orally that there is a procedural irregularity in the registration of the case against petitioners. According to them, sworn statements of the complainants were not taken and the case was registered on the basis of the mere statements and hence there was procedural irregularity which needs to be corrected. Learned Magistrate perused records and found that sworn statements were not recorded before taking cognizance of the offences. It also found that it was a procedural irregularity which cannot be corrected at that stage and hence cognizance taken in C.C.No.140 of 1999 was "withdrawn" and the accused were acquitted.

5. Thereafter, the statement of the so-called complainants (respondents 1 to 5) which was recorded on the date of their production before the Trial Court was registered as C.M.P. No.3756 of 2000 and the case was posted for recording their sworn statements. Sworn statements of respondents 1 to 5 were recorded and thereafter, based on such statements etc., the Court found that offences under S.343, 323, 324 and 34 IPC were disclosed. The Court again took cognizance of the above offences and the complaint was taken on file as C.C. No.13/2001. Summons was again issued to petitioners who are six i