CHANDRA BHUSAN ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by petitioners has been filed for quashing order dated 17/4/2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 193, 194 and 195 of Indian Penal Code (In short "IPC") in Barauni Police Station Non-first information report Case No. 1 of 2003 and order dated 1.12.2003 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in criminal revision No. 396 of 2003 by which he, relying upon a decision of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2821 of 1995 reported in the case of Smt. Bacha Devi @ Bacha Dai Devi vs. State of Bihar & Others [2000(1) PLJR 930] in which it has been held that "...Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the order of cognizance. Such entertaining of revision petition is without jurisdiction and hence the order of the Sessions Judge cannot be maintained", has dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 17.4.2003 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai taking cognizance against them.

(2.) Brief facts of the matter are that on the basis of Fard-e-bayan of petitioner N0.3, Avinash Kumar, police registered Barauni (Gahara) Police Station Case No.264 of 2002 dated 20/6/2002 under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act against unknown. During the course of investigation, statements of petitioners were recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (In short 'Cr.P.C"). The police, after comparing the statements of petitioners recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. with the post mortem examination report, came to the conclusion that petitioners had given false evidence. The ground of coming to the conclusion was that the police found that the petitioners, in their statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, stated that deceased was shot at on the night between 19.6.2002 and 20.6.2002 at about 1.30 O'clock whereas according to post mortem examination report, death of deceased had occurred prior to 11 PM on 19.6.2002. The Sub-Inspector of Police, under the written direction of Superintendent of Police, Begusarai accepting the recommendation of Sub divisional Police Officer, Sadar, submitted a prosecution report under Sections 193,194 and 195 of IPC against the petitioners. On ?the basis of this prosecution report, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated 17/4/2003, took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 193, 194 and 195 of IPC and transferred the case to the Court of Shri A. K. Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Begusarai for trial who, by his order dated 15.5.2003 issued summons for appearance of petitioners before his Court.

(3.) Mr. Jagannath Singh, the learned counsel of petitioners submits that on the basis of mere prosecution report submitted by a Police Officer alleging therein that the petitioners gave false and fabricated evidence in a judicial proceeding before a Court when their statements were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance which is against the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C which debar the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196 of IPC when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court except on the complaint in writing of that Court or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. I find great force in this argument advanced by the learned counsel of petitioners. Relevant portion of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: