GUMAN SINGH Vs. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition on behalf of Guman Singh and three others. A complaint was filed by Man Singh against Takhat Singh and six others in the court of Second Glass Magistrate, Pratapgarh on the 3rd of April, 1956 for an offence under sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate at first issued process against Takhat Singh and Sajjan Singh only, but subsequently after recording some evidence, he discharged Takhat Singh and also issued process against Guman Singh, Karan Singh and Deep Singh who were also named initially in the complaint. The accused went in revision against the order of issue of process to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Pratapgarh unsuccessfully. They have now come to this Court. It is urged by the learned counsel for the accused that the Magistrate took cognizance of the case against Guman Singh, Karan Singh and Deep Singh under sec. 190 (1) (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code and he was, therefore, bound to inform the accused that if they desired, they could apply for transfer of the case to the file of some other magistrate The learned Sessions Judge examined the point at length and held that the Magistrate in the present case took cognizance under the provisions of sec. 190 (1) (a) and not under sec. 190 (1) (c) Learned counsel has placed reliance on Suchandra Kumar Samanta vs. The King (1) and Mohammad Sadiq vs. Emperor (2) in support of his contention that where process is issued in course of an enquiry against other persons, it should be assumed that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the case against them under sec. 190 (l) (c ).

(2.) IT may be noted that the names of Guman Singh, Karan Singh and Deep Singh were already there in the complaint. The Magistrate initially issued process against Takhat Singh and Sajjan Singh only. He issued process against Guman Singh, Karan Singh and Deep Singh after recording further evidence subsequently. Under the circumstance, it is wrong to say that the Magistrate took cognizance of the case against Guman Singh, Karan Singh and Deep Singh otherwise than on the complaint. The names of the accused being already there in the complaint, the Magistrate cannot be deemed to have taken cognizance of the case against them without a complaint. The decisions referred to by the learned counsel cannot help the case of the petitioners for the reason that in those cases cognizance was taken by the Magistrate of a case as against persons not named in the complaint or in the challan. The Magistrate in the instant case has issued process piecemeal, but that cannot by itself convert the taking of cognizance of the case from sec. 190 (1) (a) to sec. 190 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The contention raised by the learned counsel has, therefore, no substance The learned counsel also urged that the Second Class Magistrate was not specially empowered to take cognizance of a case on complaints and for this reason, it is urged he had no jurisdiction to act in the matter. This contention has been raised for the first time in this Court. Had this point been canvassed before the courts below, this matter might have been enquired into. IT is a question of fact whether the Magistrate was or was not specially empowered under sec. 190 (2) by the State Government or the District Magistrate. The accused may take up this point in the lower court if they have a substantial ground for raising it. Under the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise this fresh ground in this Court for the first time. The revision fails and is dismissed. .