RAM KARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the common order dated 30.7.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar in Cr. Revision Petition No. 86/96 and 28/97. Both these revision petitions were filed against a common order dated 30.7.1996 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar vide which cognizance for offences under Sections 147, 343, 323 and 325/149 IPC was taken against seven persons. Both these revision petitions were heard and decided by a common order which is under challenge in this petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Sikar dismissed Revision No. 28/97 the accused and allowed Revision No. 86/96 filed by the complainant and in addition to other offences took cognizance for the offence under Section 304 Part-I and Part-II IPC and directed the learned court below to commit the case to the court of sessions for trial as the said offence was exclusively triable by the court of sessions.

(2.) The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner which has not been controverted by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and has rather been fairly conceded is that the revisional court could not have taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence. It could have at best directed the learned Magistrate to make 'further inquiry' and to pass fresh order in respect thereof in the light of its observations. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the case of Nikku Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in support of his conention:

(3.) I have considered the submissions in the light of the materials on record. Section 398 of the Code reads as under : -