HUKAMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application, u/s482, Cr. P. C. against the order dated the 7th June, 1979 of Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions case No. 59/76, Hukamaram Umaram and Ramuram, the applicants, content that the impugned order by which they have been called upon to face the trial and cognizance has been taken against them under Section 319, Cr. P. C, should be quashed, as it was done on the basis of police statements and no evidence has been recorded by the Sessions Judge.

(2.) DR. Bhandawat, the learned Public Prosecutor could not dispute the facts as alleged by the petitioners but he submitted that a Sessions Judge was competent to take cognizance on the basis of the police statements recorded under Section 319, Cr. P. C. as per the decision of this court in Ajayab Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1 ).

(3.) THE above judgement of Division Bench of this Court now holds the field and all earlier judgments contrary to it, cannot provide any guidance for the purpose of adjudication and decision of meaning & implications, ambit and scope of the phrase "evidence", as used in S. 319, Cr. P. C.