RAM PRAKASH Vs. BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision was taken up after the revision of the list and the learned counsel for the revisionist is not present. Mr. Chaturvedi appears on behalf of the complainant.

(2.) THE only ground taken in support of this revision is that all the witnesses cited by the complainant have not been examined under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence the order of summoning is inadequate and defective. In the case of Mahendra Kumar Jam and others v. State of U.P. and others and before that in the matter of Jitendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.2, it has already been held by this Court that during the course of trial for scheduled offences by a Special Judge under the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, the provisions of sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. will not be applicable. THEn proviso to section 7 of the Dacoity Affected Areas Act empowers the Special Judge to perform functions only under section 207 Cr. P.C. at which stage the Trial has to begin in accordance with the procedure hid down under section 226 of the Cr. P.C. THErefore, if in any case the statement of the complainant has not been recorded under section 200 Cr. P.C. or of an his witnesses under section 202 Cr. P.C. and the matter relates to special trial under the provisions of the Dacoity Affected Areas Act, this will not be deemed to be any defect in the trial. THE revision has thus no force and is hereby dismissed. THE stay order earlier passed shall stand accepted. Revision dismissed.