KRISHANA KANT LAL Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision as application filed by accused-revisionist, who was summoned under section 409 I.P.C. by order dated 15.8.1994 challenging it on the ground that the learned Magistrate acted without jurisdiction. It has been stated that he committed an error by summoning the accused after final report was filed by the police and a protest petition was filed by the complainant thereafter. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the learned Magistrate had no power to recall the documents after receipt of the charge-sheet and thereby allowed the complainant to fill up the lacuna. It is also submitted that he had no power under the Code of Criminal Procedure to call the complainant to produce documents at that stage, when the complainant did not produced those documents during investigation though several requests were made by the police authority. According to him he must have accepted the final report in the absence of any protest petition. He has placed reliance on the decision reported in Persu Ram and others v. State and the Case of Shesh Nath Chaubey v. State. The ratio of these decisions is that after filing the final report if the Magistrate wants to proceed he should have received information from other sources unconnected with the police and that the learned Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of the offence unless that condition is satisfied. There is no dispute in that regard, Learned counsel for the revisionist wanted the impress that the learned Magistrate was wrong in asking the complainant to produce the documents. In that premises I find that these decisions are of no importance.

(2.) Final report reached before the court on 3.11.1992 and on 13.4.1994 the case was heard. On 27.4.1994 some documents were produced by the complainant. In that order-sheet it appears that those documents were produced on call. Copy of the order-sheet dated 13.4.1994 was not enclosed nor any averments was made as to the contents of the said order. So it is not possible to assess what was the order of that date whether the documents was called for suo moto or an application filed by the complainant, paragraph 8 of the affidavit is silent about the contents of the order dated 13.4.1994.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned Magistrate cannot ask the complainant to file document suo moto. If the said proposition is considered to be correct one even then I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order. A Magistrate has power under section 190 (1) (c) Cr. P.C. to take cognizance. It also includes that it has power to take cognizance upon the information received from any person other than the police office.