KRUTIBASA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order dated 11.8.1983 passed lily the Magistrate First Class, Cuttack by which the learned Magistrate on the basis of materials before him has taken cognisance against petitioners Sadhu Charan Panda and Krutibas Panda under section 324/34/109, Indian Penal Code and has issued summons to them to appear on 30.8.1983.

(2.) Mr. Dey, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that though the F.I.R. contained allegations against the petitioners, but the witnesses examined under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not implicate the petitioners and, therefore, rightly no charge-sheet bad been filed against them. It is no doubt true that while being examined in court P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 implicated the petitioners in the offence, but according to Mr. Dey the power under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary power which should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist and ill the present case there is no such compelling reason for which the Magistrate should not have taken cognisance against the petitioners in exercise of power under section 319 of the Code of criminal Procedure,

(3.) In view of the evidence of PWS 3,4 and 5 malting allegations against the petitioners and also in view of the fact that in the First. Information Report itself, petitioners were implicated with the occurrence, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has arbitrarily exercised his power under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a well-known principle of criminal jurispnudence that cognisance of an offence is taken and offenders are tried when it is brought to the notice of the court that they are involved in the offence. In view of the allegations in the F.I.R. it cannot be said that the evidence of PW5 3, 4 and 5 was an afterthought and the entire case is a concoction. At any rate, that would be a matter to be decided in the trial itself. In view of the admitted position that PW5 3, 4 and 5 had deposed to the effect that petitioners were involved in the offence, the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be interfered with by this Court at this stager, therefore, find no merits in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 3.10.1983 passed in this revision is vacated and the learned Magistrate is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Revision dismissed.