RAJU RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order dtd. 10/1/2022 passed in a pending trial i.e. Sessions Trial No.572/2021 arising out of Crime No.324/2021 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Ss. 294, 506, 307, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 25 and 27 of Arms Act whereby the Court below has decided the MJC registered by the Court and at the same time while deciding the bail application of other accused persons in which the complainant moved an application that the names of the present applicants be arrayed as accused because there is sufficient material available in the case diary. The Court below while deciding the bail application of the other accused, registered the MJC and kept the same pending because on the date when bail application was being decided, the case was not committed and the said Court had no jurisdiction to decide the said MJC while considering the bail application. Although, during the pendency of that MJC, chargesheet was filed and case was committed and thereafter it came before the same Court which has decided the bail application and registered the MJC at that point of time and directed that the name of the present applicants should be added in the array of accused.

(2.) The order passed by the Court below has been assailed by the applicants mainly on the ground that the order passed by the Court below is without jurisdiction. According to the applicants, at the time of deciding the bail application of other accused, the Court had no jurisdiction to direct that on the basis of material available in the case diary, the present applicants be made accused and application submitted by the complainant at that time ought to have been rejected by the Court below saying that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to consider the said application but instead of doing so, the Court registered the MJC and decided the same by the impugned order only on the ground that after committal of the case, the trial has come before the said Court to conduct the Session Trial in a regular course.

(3.) Shri Ajay Kumar Jain and Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel appearing for applicant Nos.1 and 2 respectively submits that the aforesaid order is without jurisdiction because the Session Court acquired the jurisdiction only after committal of the case and as such deciding the same MJC which got registered by the Court when the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the MJC. After passage of time, since the said case came to the Court for conducting the trial, the MJC could not have been decided because once case has been registered by the Court or authority having no jurisdiction and after passage of time, the said Court or authority acquired the jurisdiction to decide the same, does not mean that the said proceeding becomes valid when order passed by the Court which had no jurisdiction at the very inception to entertain the MJC, therefore, the order passed in the said proceeding is also without jurisdiction.