VIKRAM SINGH LATWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Vikram Singh Latwal And Another
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
U.C. Dhyani, J. -
(1.) - A perusal of the impugned order dated 22.03.2007, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, will indicate that it is no order in the eye of law. It was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in most mechanical manner, without application of mind. The names of the accused persons were not disclosed by learned Judicial Magistrate. It was not disclosed, as to against whom learned Judicial Magistrate was taking cognizance. It was also not disclosed as to under which offence (s), the accused persons were being summoned. There was only one name, i.e. Vikram Singh Latwai. Who are the others-their names were not indicated in the impugned order.
(2.) The cognizance was taken under Section 190 (1) (b) Criminal Procedure Code The word 'cognizance' has not been defined in the Code, but means, according to a catena of decisions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, judicial application of mind for the purpose of proceeding under Chapter XIV of the Code. It is, therefore, reiterated that the impugned order was passed without judicial application of mind, and was, therefore, no 'cognizance' in the eye of law. The impugned order cannot sustain.
(3.) The Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated this practice while deciding the Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2007 [SLP (Crl.) No. 4701 of 2007] Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttaranchal, decided on December 10, 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was constrained to observe as follows;
"In the State of Uttaranchal (now known as State of Uttarakhand) there exists a strange practice. The Magistrates take cognizance of offences and issue summons in terms of Section '2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 'rubber stamp' orders.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.