ORDER : Petitioner had filed a Private Criminal Complaint against the respondents, which has been dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur vide impugned order dated 4.12.2017, on the ground that testimony of the complainant is unreliable for the reason that on one hand he has claimed that he is 100% visually impaired and has placed on record medical certificate to substantiate the said fact, and on the other hand in his deposition he has given description of the accused persons as well as their activities during the alleged commission of offence alongwith weapons, i.e. Darat and Sticks, carried by them in their hands with further averment that after seeing the Darat and Sticks in the hands of the accused party, he had run towards his room. Learned Magistrate has observed that complainant, being 100% visually impaired incapable to see, has narrated a false story before the Court. 2. Respondents have filed reply, wherein relying upon document Ext. CW-1/A, which specifies blindness of the petitioner, impugned order passed by the Magistrate has been supported. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, being confronted with aforesaid reasoning, has placed on record another document i.e. Disability Certificate of the petitioner wherein extent of disability has been tabulated as per Guidelines and his disability has been shown in the table against the low vision and it has been declared to be permanent and 100%. 4. A booklet of Disability (Permanent Physical Impairment) regarding its Assessment and Certification, published and printed by National Institute for the Orthopaedically Handicapped, B.T. Road, Bon-Hooghly, Kolkata, providing Guidelines and explanation by its Director, based on Guidelines and Gazette notification issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India, contains a Chapter ‘Visual Disability’ wherein it is observed that visually disabled persons can be categorized into two groups :- “Blindness: Persons who does not have light perception or persons who have light perception but cannot count fingers at a distance of 1 meter even with spectacles (best possible correction). Low vision: persons who have light perception and cannot count fingers up to a distance of 3 meters even with spectacles.” In it in points to be remembered in visual disability assessment, it has been observed that Vision has been taken as 100% and percentage of disability in such cases should be calculated from that and nothing thinking human body as 100% and considering vision as part of that. In the Guidelines for assessment of visual disability, definition of blindness and low vision has been given as under:- 1. Blindness refers to a condition where a person suffers from any of the condition, namely. (i) Total absence of sight; or (ii) Visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with best correcting lenses; or (iii) Limitation of field of vision subtending an angle of 20 degree or worse; 2. Low Vision :- Persons with low vision means a person a with impairment of vision of less than 6/18 to 6/60 with best correction in the better eye or impairment of field in any one of the following categories :- (a) Reduction of fields less than 50 degrees (B) Hemianopia with macular involvement (c) Altitudinal defeat involving lower fields. In the aforesaid guidelines categories of visual disability have also been clarified as under :- Category Better eye Worse eye % age impairment Category 0 6/9-6/18 6/24-6/36 20% Category I 6/18-6/36 6/60-Nil 40% Category II 6/60-4/60 or Field of vision 10-20 3/60-Nil 75% Category III 3/60-1/60 or Field of vision 10o F.C. at 1ft-Nil 100% Category IV F.C at 1ft-Nil Or field of vision 10o F.C at 1ft-Nil 100% One eyed 6/6 F.C. at 1 ft.-Nil or persons Field of vision 10 30% (Note: F.C. means finger count.)” 5. From the aforesaid Guidelines it can be easily understood that 100% permanent visual disability does not mean that a person is not capable to see anything at all. In present case, the petitioner has been declared to be suffering from 100% visual disability on the basis of low vision. 6. From the aforesaid Guidelines it can be easily understood that 100% permanent visual disability does not mean that a person is not capable to see anything at all. In present case, the petitioner has been declared to be suffering from 100% visual disability on the basis of low vision. 6. In the aforesaid guidelines a person who does not have light perception or person who has light perception but cannot count fingers at a distance of 1 meter even with spectacles has been considered to be suffering from blindness whereas a person who has light perception and cannot count fingers up to a distance of 3 meters even with spectacles has been considered to be suffering from low vision. Therefore, a person of low vision is capable to see at least upto 3 meters. 7. In the present case disability certificate issued to the petitioner is on the basis of low vision, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that he could not have seen the respondents as alleged in the complaint. 8. Effect and meaning of document Ext.CW1/A is to be assessed in view of Guidelines for assessment of disability, definition of ‘blindness’ and ‘low vision’, referred supra. In the light of above referred Guidelines, I am of the considered opinion that the rejection of complaint by learned Magistrate is based on wrong notion as 100% disability shown in certificate Ext.CW1/A does not mean that petitioner was not able to see anything at all. It is a clear error which has resulted in grave injustice. Learned Magistrate, in absence of expert evidence or any other evidence with respect to possible vision and quantum of capability of the complainant to see, should not have dismissed the complaint based on wrong notion. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and complaint filed by petitioner before the trial Court is revived to its original position and parties are directed to appear before learned trial Court i.e. JMFC, Bilaspur on 27th September, 2021. 9. It is made clear that petition has been allowed only on the issue involved in impugned order, but based on material before me, and no opinion with respect to merit of complaint or defence of respondents has been expressed by this Court which are to be considered and decided by trial Court at the appropriate stage by taking into consideration the material placed before him, in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of, including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.