DURGA DUTT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been preferred against the order dated 2. 2. 93 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu, whereby he dismissed accused petitioner's revision petition as time barred against the order dated 8. 6. 92 of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Churu taking cognizance of offences under sections 147,323,324,452 & 149 IPC against them.

(2.) STATED in succinct, the relevant facts are that on the report of com-plainant-Non-petitioner Hira Lal, Crime No. 85/90 was registered against the accused petitioners at Police Station, Kotwali, Churu for the offences under Ss. 147,148,323,452 & 149 IPC. The police after investigation submitted a final report on 30. 4. 90 holding that the complainant had deliberately lodged a false report. The I. O. also proposed to file a criminal complaint against the complainant for the offence under Sec. 182 IPC. The complainant filed a protest petition on 6. 6. 90, wherein he specifically alleged that accused-petitioner Chunni Lal being an employee in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Churu, had influenced the investigation,that from his statement as well as the statements of injured Smt. Prem Devi & Hira Lal and other eye witnesses, which were duly corroborated from medical injury reports, accusation against the accused-petitioners was fully made out. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties and perusing the Final Report, the evidence collected by the cross case to wit Crime No. 86/90 registered against the complainant Hira Lal Investigating Officer as also the case diary of the held that there were sufficient grounds for believing that the accused-petitioners Ramawatar, Nemi Chand and Durga Dutt had voluntarily inflicted hurt to complainant Hira Lal and Smt. Prem Devi and, as such, by his order dated 26. 2. 91 took cognizance against the aforementioned three accused petitioners only for the offence under section 323 IPC and summoned them. Those three accused-petitioners appeared in the court and on 8. 6. 92 the learned Magistrate under section 251 Cr. P. C. stated the substance of the accusation for the offence u/s. 323 IPC against them, who denied the indictment and claimed trial. The learned Magistrate also ordered for issuance of summons to ensure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses. However,on the same day,the learned Magistrate made a further 'post Script Order'that after perusing the file, prima facie, offences under sections 147,323,324,452 & 149 IPC appeared to have been made out against all the seven accused petitioners. He, therefore, took cognizance against them for the said offences and also ordered for issuance of summons against the remaining four accused-petitioners. Aggrieved by that order, revision petition No. 42/92 was filed by the accused-petitioners on 21. 9. 92 before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu. They also separately filed an application under section 5, Limitation Act alongwith the affidavits -of Chunni Lal and Ramawatar for condonation of delay. The learned Sessions Judge without deciding the said application filed under section 5, Limitation Act, vide his impugned order dated 2. 2. 93 dismissed the revision petition treating the same to be time barred. Hence this petition.

(3.) IN Mahendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2), the Chief Judicial Magistrate after perusing the police report under sec. 173 (2) Cr. P. C. and after hearing the prosecution and the accused persons took cognizance against one accused and discharged the other. Thereafter, the Addl. P. P. submitted an application before him to add and implead another person 'm' as an accuse. The Magistrate allowed that application and took cognizance against 'm'. By that time, no evidence had been recorded during trial. It was held that until and unless some evidence was recorded during trial, the Magistrate could not proceed under sec. 319 (1) Cr. P. C. and implead 'm' as an accused. However, it was observed that after recording the evidence, if the Magistrate felt that he should take cognizance against any other person and to summon him for trial, then he was free to pass appropriate order to that effect.