was kept for appearance, the respondent/accused filed an application for withdrawal of the suit. At that time, the leaned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council made a statement that there is no stall in existence at the place i.e. near municipal garden, as claimed by the respondent. A prayer for holding site inspection to verify the fact was also made. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has thereafter noticed that there was neither inspection carried out by the Presiding Officer as to the existence of the stall, nor any officer was deputed to verify the physical existence of the same. It has also been noticed that on behalf of the Municipal Council, there was no objection for withdrawal of the suit. The learned Additional Sessions Judge thus found that, there was merely a statement on behalf of the Municipal Council, on instructions, that the stall was not in existence at the place, as claimed by the respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has further found that the best possible way to verify the correctness or otherwise of such statement, was to send any Officer or the Bailiff, which was not availed of. It was also found that, since the suit was allowed to be withdrawn, the
