RAJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. A short point for determination in this revision is as to whether the Special Judge (Decoity Affected Area), Etawah took cognizance of the case under Section 190 (1 ) (a) or under Section 190 (1 ) (b) or under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Cr PC.

(2.) THE first information report was filed by one Munendra Singh against 27 persons. He thereafter moved an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr PC upon which the police submitted a final report. Munendra Singh fired a protest petition. On 12-7-1990 the trial judge passed the following order : "perused the C. D. F. R. , the protest petition. Put up (on) 9-8-1990 for the statement of complainant. He may fire affidavit. "

(3.) FROM the order dated 12-7-1990 it appears that the Magistrate wanted to proceed under Section 190 (1) (a) and fixed the date for statement of the complainant and directed him to file affidavits. It has not been disputed that the evidence under Section 202, Cr PC cannot be taken on affidavits. The above order would, therefore, mean that the trial judge fixed 9-8-1990 for statement of the complainant. On 9- 8-1990 he did not record the statement of the complainant and on the basis of the protest petition and the affidavits he summoned Raj Bahadur to stand trial under Section 395, IPC. The order sheet further shows that he did not accept the final report is so far as it related to Raj Bahadur and summoned him.