MANGILAL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order dated 25.2.2010 learned Judicial Magistrate, Sojat took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 read with Sec. 120B Indian Penal Code against petitioners Mangilal and Kesaram and also took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Sec. 120B Indian Penal Code against petitioner Ruparam. A revision petition giving challenge to the order aforesaid came to be rejected by order dated 23.6.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali.

(2.) To question correctness of the orders aforesaid this misc. petition is preferred with submission that the trial court could have not taken cognizance against the petitioners unless having an application as per provisions of Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. and i.e. only after examining testimonies of the witnesses and on satisfying about availability of prima facie case against the petitioners concerned.

(3.) The argument advanced is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Uma Shankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2011 (1) CJ (Cr.) (SC) 1 . In the case aforesaid Honourable Supreme Court held as under:-