ANIL KUMAR ADITYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.11.1999 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate/ Shahdara, whereby the learned Magistrate has issued process against the petitioner. Anil Kumar Aditya, although the challan filed before him shows the petitioner in column No. 2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that once challan has been placed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the persons who are shown in column No. 2 cannot be summoned unless fresh evidence against them is received and in the absence of any fresh material, summoning of the petitioner herein in this case is bad.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the State who submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kishori Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., VII (2000) SLT 324=IV (2000) CCR 119 (SC), it is not open to the learned Magistrate to summon the person who is kept in column No. 2 as an accused in the absence of fresh material which can be placed only before the Court of Sessions which may then act in exercise of its power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Having, therefore, heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order under challenge is bad at law since the learned Magistrate could not summon the petitioner. Anil Kumar Aditya, who is shown in column No. 2, at this stage. With this observation the order under challenge is set aside qua the petitioner, Anil Kumar Aditya and Criminal Revision No. 442 of 1999 is allowed.