GANESH PRASAD JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the final report was filed on the ground that independent witnesses had not come forward to support the F.IR. It was next submitted that the present case is a counter blast of the earlier case lodged on behalf of the applicant No.1. It was also submitted that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, committed error of law in placing reliance on the statements of the witnesses Abdul Kalam, Gulam Mohammad and Chulbul as they are interested witnesses. It was next submitted that the learned Magistrate passed the summoning order on the basis of the affidavits filed in support of the protest petition.

(3.) No doubt the final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer, but the learned Magistrate had power to differ from the conclusion drawn by the police. If the learned Magistrate on perusal of the materials collected during the investigation, was of the view that the conclusion of the Investigating Officer was not correct and accordingly he recorded his own conclusion, it cannot be contended that the learned Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in doing so.