A P SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants feel aggrieved by the order date 29-11-1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jagdalpur in Criminal Case No. 1148/83 joining these applicants as accused persons in the said case, and seek interference of this court by filing this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C.

(2.) It appears that on a report lodged on 15.1.1980 an offence U/S 379 I.P.C. was registered at police station, Kondagaon against Non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 and one Vinod Kumar, now dead. It was alleged that the forest wood of lot No. 996/1022 was dishonestly removed by the accused persons on the basis of alleged forged document. The police subsequently filed the charge-sheet alleging commission of offences under Sections 420/467/468, I.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate while considering the question of framing of charge held that there was material on record which prima facie indicates involvement of applicants in the said offence. The learned Magistrate, therefore, passed the impugned order joining the applicants as accused persons. The applicants feel aggrieved by this order and have rushed to this Court for getting the same quashed. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants, in the main, is that powers of a Magistrate to proceed against a person, not being an accused, are regulated by provisions of Section 319, Cr. P.C. and are available to the Magistrate only after some evidence has been recorded during the trial from which involvement of other persons may prima facie be inferred. The learned counsel submitted that since no evidence has been recorded during the trial and the matter was at the stage of consideration of framing of charge, the impugned order is illegal. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has exercised the power light-heartedly, whereas Section 319, Cr. P.C., is intended to be sparingly used and only when there are compelling reasons for the same. The learned Government Advocate, supported the impugned order and submitted that it is not referable to Section 319, Cr. P.C. but is referable to Section 240, Cr. P.C. which entitles the Magistrate to issue process against others not made accused in the case. It is otherwise submitted that the word evidence appearing in Section 319, Cr. P.C. cannot be given a restricted meaning and includes even the evidence collected during investigation.

(3.) Factually speaking, the trial in the instant case has not reached the stage of evidence. The case was fixed for framing of charge for which the learned Magistrate looked into the material on record. He apparently felt that the applicants were involved in forging document, which formed the basis of transport of the stacked wood. He, therefore, held that there was sufficient ground to issue process against them. The question for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate had the jurisdiction to do so? Section 319, Cr. P. C. which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, reads as under: S.319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence: