SATISH KUMAR ARORA Vs. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SANDILA HARDOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. P. Mathur, J. This petition is being disposed of finally. An order purporting to be under Section 319, Cr. P. C. was made by the Judicial Magis trate, Sandila, district Hardoi, who was trying the case against Harbans Lal on a charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears that the trial was almost complete and the statement of the accused Harbans Lal was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. He made a statement implicating the present applicants Satish Kumar Arora and Surendra Kumar Arora in this case. The learned Magistrate appears to have treated this state ment under Section 313, Cr. P. C. as an evidence. He appears to have taken a case from an application made by the Public Prosecutor who also brought it to the notice of the Court that in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. Harbans Lal had made written allegation implicating Satish Kumar Arora and Surendra Kumar Arora. The learned Magistrate thereafter passed the impugn ed order on 16-11-1987 summoning Satish Kumar Arora and Surendra Kumar to stand their trial as co-accused. It also appears that by subsequent order the Judicial Magistrate, Sandila directed issue of non-bailable warrants of arrest for both these accused.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel of the applicants as well as the learned Counsel for the State It is undoubted that a statement of an accused recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. is not an evidence as envisaged by Section 319, Cr. P. C. and on the basis of this statement alone the Court cannot pass an order under Section 319, Cr. P. C. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is, therefore, vitiated, Of course, it will be open to the learned Magistrate to proceed against the petitioners, if there is evidence against them but on the basis of this statement alone of the accused it is Apt possible.