AJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). Petitioner is aggrieved by the order-dated 11.4.12 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, Distt. Chhatarpur in Cri. Revision No. 2/12, affirming the order-dated 29.11.11 passed by JMFC, Badamalehra in Cri. Case No. 466/11, whereby cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 119 and 188 of the IPC was taken against him. In that case, -

(2.) Learned Panel Lawyer, however, pointed out that no interference under the inherent powers would be warranted as the case related to defalcation of a huge amount of public money.

(3.) Adverting to the legal aspects of the matter, it may be observed that in Raj Kishore's case , a two-Judge Bench categorically laid down that under Section 209 of the Code, the committing Magistrate has no power to take cognizance of an offence, triable by the Court of Session, against any person not named in the charge sheet but, as rightly held by learned ASJ, cognizance of the offences in question has been taken by the Magistrate in exercise of the power conferred under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code. To support the conclusion, he has made reference to a recent decision of the Apex Court in Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation Delhi, 2012 2 SCC 188, wherein following observations made by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in India Carat Pvt. Ltd., M/s. v. State of Karnataka, 1989 AIR(SC) 885 were relied upon -