MUNNA LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Nigam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. We have also heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

(2.) The case was listed for hearing argument on condonation of delay of 26 days, which has been reported by the Stamp Reporter of the Court. However, when the matter was called out and we had a glance of the impugned judgment passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 105 of 2005 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat dated 25.07.2013, we had another issue before us and we found it necessary first to decide that issue, then only the matter could be proceeded further. We are not going onto the merits of the appeal, and to the question as to whether the reported delay of 26 days in filing the appeal could be condoned or not merely because, in our opinion, the very procedure, which was adopted by the learned trial Judge to carry out the trial of the case was palpably illegal and against the 3provisions of the Special Act, i.e. U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983.

(3.) Before we advert to the provisions of the Special Act noted above, we want to have a glance on a few provisions of the Cr.P.C. Ordinarily, power of taking cognizance in the Cr.P.C. is vested into a Magistrate as per the provisions of Section 190, but there are other provisions also, which have vested powers of taking cognizance in other courts also, like, the Court of Session. One such provision under section 193 Cr.P.C. reads as under: