BHANWAR LAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition filed by the accused- petitioners Kanwar Lal, Gopal, Bhawani Shanker and Ram Lal is, directed against the order dated 23rd of March, 1994 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Atru whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against these accused persons for the offence under Sec. 459 IPC. Record was called for. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.

(2.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the lower court had already taken cognizance in this matter on 23rd of Oct., 1991 against these accused persons and, therefore, that court could not have taken cognizance second time in the same case. It is argued that because the court has taken cognizance twice, therefore, the cognizance taken second time should be set aside.

(3.) I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also on this point and perused the record. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case, the trial court had already taken cognizance against the accused persons for the same offence on 23rd of Oct., 1991. Therefore, there was no necessity at all for the trial court to take cognizance against these accused persons second time on 23rd of March, 1994. If the court was of the view that in the matter that offence under Sec. 459 Penal Code is made out, then he could have considered this point at the time of hearing charge arguments under Sec. 240 Cr.RC. I am of the view that because the learned Magistrate had already taken cognizance in the case on 23rd of Oct., 1991, therefore, there was no necessity at all to take cognizance in the same case second time on 23rd of March, 1994. Therefore, the order taking cognizance second time in the matter is bad in law and should be quashed.