This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner-complainant against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 18 of 1956, confirming the order passed by the learned Second Magistrate, Kolar, discharging the respondent accused in C.C. No. 2127 of 1955. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: The respondent-accused was charge-sheeted by the Kolar Town Police for an offence under section 379, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the learned Second Magistrate, Kolar, alleging that he (accused) on 26th September, 1955, committed theft of three general stamp papers valued at Rs. 300 belonging to the petitioner complainant, by snatching the same in a fit of anger from the pocket of the petitioner and tearing them off, and that he thereby committed an offence under section 379, Indian Penal Code.

The procedure provided under section 251-A of the amended Criminal Procedure Code was followed and the learned Magistrate found that, on the materials placed before him, no case of theft was made out and he accordingly discharged the accused under section 251-A (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge, to whom a revision petition was preferred agreed with the learned Magistrate and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Against that order, this revision petition is preferred.

The main point that arises for consideration is whether the disposal of the case in the manner in which it is done by the Courts below is correct. The learned Magistrate held that no offence under section 379, Indian Penal Code, was made out, that the materials placed before him disclosed an offence section 477, Indian Penal Code, cognizable by a Court of Session and that he had no jurisdiction to c,eal with the matter. The learned Sessions Judge likewise held that no offence under section 379, Indian Penal Code, was made out, that if at all, the materials placed before the Court disclosed any offence it was one of mischief which was a non-cognizable one and in respect of which the police could not place any charge-sheet, and that as no cognizable offence was made out the order of the learned Magistrate had to be upheld. I am of opinion that both the Courts were wrong in their respective views. If the views of the Courts below are accepted, it is tantamount to saying that section 251-A requires that an accused should be discharged if the offence alleged by the prosecution as having been committed under a particular section of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, irrespective of the fact whether the allegations made in the charge-sheet prima facie disclosed any other offence or not. This, in my opinion, is not a correct statement of law.

Section 251-A (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code under which the respondent accused stands discharged runs thus:

“If upon consideration of all the documents referred to in section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge him.”

A Magistrate under this provision is required to discharge an accused if he considers, on a consideration of the various materials referred to therein that the charge against the accused is groundless. In my opinion, the words “the charge against the accused to be groundless” appearing in the above section must be construed as “when there is no legal evidence in support of the charge brought against the accused and the facts do not make out any offence at all.” The word ‘charge’ cannot be restricted to mean only the charge brought by the prosecution under a particular section of the Indian Penal Code. I am of the view that a final order of discharge can be passed by a Magistrate under section 251-A (2) only when after considering the matter referred to in that section he thinks that