RAMLAL Vs. MADHAORAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A private compliant was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pusad, by the present non-applicant Madhaorao Chintaman Sontakke, alleging that the present applicant (original accused) has committed offences punishable under sections 177, 192, 199, 200, 415, 417, 420, 463,464, 465 and 471 of the India Penal Code. The learned Magistrate on recording the verification of the complaint issued process under all the sections. The accused put in his appearance and moved that some of the offences cannot be taken cognizance of by the Court due to a legal bar created by section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate passed the order that sections 177, 200, 463 and 471 be struck off from the process. This order passed by the learned Magistrate on 12-9-1984 has not been challenged. The learned Magistrate has now taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 192, 415, 417, 420, 463, 464 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. This order was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, vide Criminal Revisions No. 99 of 1984. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 20-11-1985, dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. It is this order which has been challenged before this Court in this application.

(2.) It was the contention raised on behalf of the applicant, that the learned Magistrate could not proceed with the trial for offence punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code as that offence also was covered the bar created under section 195 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction. As far as the other offences are concerned, it was contended that the complaint, as it stands the verification recorded by the learned Magistrate and other material brought on record, do not establish any ingredient of these offences and therefore, it was wrong on the part of the learned Magistrate to issue process. It was also contended that taking cognizance of the offence was sheer abuse of the process of law. He, therefore, wanted the whole proceedings to be quashed.

(3.) It may be pointed out at the very outset that when the learned Magistrate practically upheld the bar of section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, he could not, in fact, proceed with the trial for the offence punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Bobde, the learned Advocate for the non-applicant No. 1, fairly conceded before me that the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence punishable under section 193 (as defined in section 192 of the Indian Penal Code). This being the position of law, the order suffers and the applicant is entitled to that relief vis-a-vis.