Z U AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia delivered on 1-12-1992. By the aforesaid judgment and order he allowed the said revision and set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia dated 16-4-1992 and the case was remanded back with direction to proceed according to law. The learned Judge has also directed both the parties to appear before the said Court for taking part in further proceeding.

(2.) The complainant filed a case in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia against the revisionists for prosecuting them under Ss. 161, 167, 217, 218, 409, 467, 468 and 500, I.P.C. On 24-12-1991 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia ordered to register the case and proceeded to examine the complainant and his witnesses under Ss. 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. After examining the two witnesses he transferred the case to the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia on 14-2-1992 for disposal. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate heard on the point of maintainability of the said complaint in view of S. 197, Cr. P.C. and after hearing he dismissed the complaint under S. 203, Cr. P.C. on 16-4-1992 against which a revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Ballia.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia heard the revision and disposed it of with the finding that the offence complained of is intimately connected with official duty of the opposite party (before him) and that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has no power to hear, suo motu, about the maintainability of the petition complaint when the Chief Judicial Magistrate has already took cognizance and transferred it to him for disposal. He has held that it was obligatory on the part of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to summon the opposite parties and if at subsequent stage the opposite parties raises any objection as regards bar of S. 197, Cr. P.C., then the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate could decide the said matter.