SURESH CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point involved in this petition is whether after committing of a case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr. P.C., a Sessions Judge can take cognizance under Section 193 of Cr. P.C. against those persons who have not been arrayed as accused by the police in the challan.

(2.) It appears that unless a case is committed by a Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, a Sessions Judge can not take cognizance of any offence except as otherwise expressly provided by Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force. No other provision of Code of Criminal Procedure or of any other law has been mentioned. Admittedly, the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Although the Petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in the case by the police while filing challan yet the bar of committing of a case has now been gone away. After committing of a case, on the basis of the documents and evidence collected and enclosed by the investigating agency along with the challan, if a sessions judge comes to the conclusion that a person who has not been arrayed as an accused is also to be tried alongwith the persons who have been arrayed as accused in the challan, he can take cognizance against such other persons also. There appears no bar after committing of a case. The observation of the apex court in the case of Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar, 1993 S.C.C(Cri) 470 endorsed by the apex court in the case of Nisar v. State of U.P., 1995 SCC (Cri) 306 can be perused in support of the aforementioned point.