1. This is a Reference made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Reasi recommending quashment of an order recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Reasi on 31st of January, 2004, whereunder he discharged the accused/respondents of offences under sections 447-A/147-R.P.C. Respondent™s counsel while opposing acceptance of the Reference contends that impugned order of trial Magistrate was perfectly well placed in circumstances of the case.

2. I have heard learned counsel, gone through the records and considered the matter. It appears that on 28-12-2003, the concerned police instituted a case against accused/respondents under section-447/147-R.P.C. with allegations that they were trespassing over State land under Survey nos. 409, 405, 358 and 341 situate at Tanda Tehsil Reasi despite concerned Tehsildar™s eviction orders under section-133 of Land Revenue Act passed in respect thereof, at whose behest the case had been registered. Materials submitted alongwith police case, include, Site-map of the concerned land alongwith statements purported to have been recorded u/s 161, Cr.P.C during the course of investigation etc. From date of institution till 13th of January, 2004, matter continued to be pending before the Trial Magistrate, who ultimately dismissed the case at thresh-hold, discharging accused on the ground that date in the police report, and after having been dispossessed therefrom the accused/respondents had taken over the possession of the land in question, which indicated that the police report was not well founded. Aggrieved thereby, the State impugned the order in revision before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who found that the order was bad, and hence the reference.

3. The case before the Magistrate, including inter-alia, allegations under section-147 R.P.C., which is punishable with three year™s imprisonment is a warrant case, procedure for trial whereof is laid down under Chapter-21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which contains provisions of sections 251 to 259-B. For trial of warrant cases instituted on police report like the one in hand, the procedure to be adopted by concerned Magistrate is specifically laid down under Section 251-A according to which, after satisfying himself that copies of the Police report and documents appended therewith, have been furnished to the accused, he would consider the case and after hearing the parties, proceed further. If, on consideration, he finds that charge against accused is groundless, he shall discharge them, and in case there is some ground for presuming that accused have committed the offence triable under the Chapter, he shall frame a charge and explain the same to the accused for recording their pleas.

4. Instantly, the trial Magistrate while considering the matter as above appears to have concluded that charges levelled against the accused were groundless, which in given circumstances of the case does not appear to be correct; for the simple reason that with report from an Executive Magistrate and incriminating materials collected during investigations, including the statements of the witnesses recorded under section-161, Cr.P.C. the charges could not be said to be groundless.

5. It may be pointed out that the word groundless as used in sub section (ii) of Section-251-A, as the reason for discharging the accused has to be understood as being opposite of the expression the grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence used in the sub section (ii) thereof as reason for framing the charge. The expression Grounds to presume the guilt as per authoritative pronouncements of Hon™ble Apex Court and High Courts has been interpreted to mean a mere suspicion that is enough to suggest commission of offence by the accused. Obviously then the opposite would be that the police case alongwith all the materials appended therewith is not enough to even create a suspicion of the commission of offence by the accused, in which case only, they would be entitled to a discharge,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document