JAGANNATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am really surprised to go through the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. In his order dated June 14, 1980, which has been made in a criminal revision petition, the learned Addl. Sessions, Judge has not only allowed the revision petition but has also taken cognizance of the offence Under Section 147 and 506 IPC, against the petitioners. It shows a lack of knowledge of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and it is because no attempt appears to have been made by him to go through Section 398 of Cr.PC. The golden rule is that as and when necessity arises of going through any provisions of law, one should go through it. Though a court might have gone through that provision complete times, it must again go through it and any departure from this golden rule is likely to result in commission of a blunder, which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, has committed. It is expected from Officers of the cadre of Addl. Sessions Judge that the basic principles of law must be in their knowledge and if at any stage a doubt crops up, it must be removed and the only mode to remove it is to go through the relevant provisions of law. Be that as it may. After having made these observations, I proceed to dispose of this petition.

(2.) ONE Devisharan filed a complaint against the accused -petitioners in the court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Chief Judl. Magistrate. after recording the statement of the complainant Under Section 200 and his witnesses Under Section 202 Cr. PC came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused -petitioners. He, therefore, dismissed the complaint and did not even through it proper to issue any process. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate the complainant filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who observed that prima facie a case Under Section 147 and 505 IPC is made out against all the accused petitioners and also observed that there was sufficient ground to take cognizance of the offence and also took cognizance of the offence. The learned Add). Sessions Judge as stated earlier, if he would have cared to go through Section 398 Cr.PC, perhaps, this blunder would not have been committed A bare reading of Section 398 Cr.PC will show that if on examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrate subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any Subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub -section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged.

(3.) I hereby allow this petition, quash the order dated June 14, 1988 the of learned Additional Sessions Judge.