BASANTI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed under Sec. 397/401, Crimial P.C., the petitioner is challenging order dated 12.09.1997 passed in Sessions Case No.49/97 by Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, whereby, cognizance was taken by learned Sessions Judge against the petitioner upon application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Sec. 319, Crimial P.C. for committing offence under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C., in the alternative, offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after investigation in the FIR filed by the complainant challan was filed against two accused persons namely, Dharmdas and Tulsi Ram for offences under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C., in the alternative, Sec. 302, I.P.C. During trial, after recording statements of P.W.-7 Nathu Lal, P.W.-8 Smt. Geeta, father and mother of the deceased, learned Sessions Judge took cognizance against the petitioner and issued bailable warrant against the petitioner.

(3.) Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that order of taking cognizance dated 12.09.1997 is erroneous because as per the verdict of Honourable Supreme Court, if it is found after perusal of the evidence recorded in the trial that there is sufficient material to presume that ultimately conviction is possible, then, in that event, cognizance can be taken against a person in addition to the accused already challaned by the police. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Sessions Judge committed an error while ignoring the fact that there is no material on record to show that ultimately the petitioner can be convicted, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed.