SUKHRAM ALIAS SHUBHRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision filed by petitioner is directed against the order dated 7. 8. 2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kishangarhbas, whereby cognizance was taken against the accused petitioner for offence under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 336, 341/34 IPC , on an application filed by complainant Satyavir under Section 193 Cr. P. C.

(2.) NOTICES were issued. On behalf of complainant Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate has appeared. Arguments were heard.

(3.) I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and examined the impugned order. It is clear from this order that this order is passed under Section 193 Cr. P. C. Police did not file challan against the petitioner Sukhram. Case was committed to Sessions Court. In the committal order, Sukhram was not the accused. Sukhram Petitioner was made accused by learned Additional Sessions Judge by this impugned order under Section 193 Cr. P. C. It is also clear that by that time learned Additional Sessions Judge did not record any evidence at all and has taken cognizance against this accused on the ground of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. by Police. In view of the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court in Kishori Singh's case (supra), it is clear that Sessions Judge could not proceed under Section 193 Cr. P. C. as it is done by him. In this case Hon. Supreme Court has held. as under:- 10. So far as those persons against whom charge-sheet has not been filed, they can be arrayed as "accused persons" in exercise of powers under Section 319 of Cr. P. C. when some evidence or materials are brought on record in course of trial or they could also be arrayed as " accused persons" only when a reference is made either by the Magistrate while passing an order of commitment or by the learned Sessions Judge to the High Court and the High Court, on examining the materials comes to the conclusion that sufficient materials exist against them even though the police might not have filed charge sheet, as has been explained in the latter three Judges Bench decision. Neither of the contingencies has arisen in the case in hand. "