ASHOK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rabim, J. In this revision application two questions have been raised. Firstly, while considering the matter under Section 239, Cr. P. C. the learned Magistrate did not scrutinise the evidence and the order is bad in law. At that stage the learned Magistrate is only to see prima facie case and if the Magistrate is satisfied on the basis that charge sheet and the papers produced before him that there is prima facie case against the accused persons I find that there is no illegality in the order. Secondly, it has been alleged that the learned Magistrate consolidated one complaint case along with the police case but did not consider that in a complaint case two persons were summoned while in the police case five persons have been charge-sheeted. According to the learned counsel the order is bad. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no order of discharge in respect of three other accused in the complaint case and when consdidated the learned Magistrate went through the case diary and relevant document and found that prima facie case existed against ail the accused persons hence there is no illegality in the order. I fully agree with the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel. I do not think that the learned Magistrate has done any illegality in this respect. Moreover, the scrutiny of the evidence is not permissible at this stage. His duty is to see whether there is any prima facie case and whether on the basis of the allega tion cognizable case has been made out. Truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence would be investigated during trial. In a decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 1780 it has also been held that in meticulously appreciating the evidence the Magistrate had over-stepped the limits of his discretion, which has been discouraged by the Supreme Court.

(2.) CONSIDERING these facts I do not find any merit and the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .