JAI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RADHEY Krishna Agrawal, J. This revision has been filed against the order, dated 4-2-91 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad, summoning the accused for offence under Section 392 I. P. C. The first information report was lodged unfler Section 392 I. P. C. against the accused/revisionist. The police submitted final report. The complainant filed protest application and in support of it he had filed affidavit of several witnesses. The learned Magistrate relying on the protest application and affidavits of those witnesses passed the impugned order summoning the accused/revisionist. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in not following the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. and in straight way summoning the accused/revisionist for the evidence. In support of that contention he has placed reliance on a case reported in 1990 Vol. IX LCr. R 397, Suresh Chanda v. State and Am In this case the learned Single Judge relying on a case reported in 1989 SCC (Cri) 306, Mis India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kamataka and Ors. , has observed that in pase the Magistrate was not satisfied with the final report and has taken into consideration the affidavits filed on behalf of the complainant the Magistrate should have given direction to the complainant to adduce evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. The aforesaid case of Suresh Chandar has full application in this case.

(3.) THE office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned C. J. M. concerned without delay.