BANIKANTA PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue of process in G.R. Case No. 235 of 1998 as per the impugned order dated 19.3.1999 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (in short, 'J.M.F.C.'), Banpur has dragged the four petitioners to this Court for seeking the remedy to quash that order by invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code').

(2.) A brief sketch of the factual situation will highlight the issue involved in the case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the procedure followed by learned J.M.F.C. is not supported by any provision in the Code and is per se illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside. In that connection he referred to the ratio in the case of Jogendra Nahak and others v. State of Orissa and others (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 342, in which the Apex Court confirmed the judgment of this Court propounding that statement under Section 164(1) of the Code cannot be recorded by the Magistrate on mere asking by a person as a witness when not sponsored by the investigating agency. His second limb of argument was that if the offence involved is exclusively triable by Court of Session, then at the pre-committal stage of the case the Magistrate has no scope of exercising jurisdiction for adding any person not so charge-sheeted in view of the ratio in the cases of Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 (7) SCC 149; Kishori Singh and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2000) 19 OCR (SC) 647; and Brajananda Nayak and others v. State of Orissa, (2000) 19 OCR 712. Accordingly, petitioners pray to quash the order of issue of process against them.