J.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard applicant's counsel in revision and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) Office has reported that the revision is beyond time by 22 days and application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit has been moved for condoning the delay on the ground that the revision is within time from the date of knowledge of impugned order.
(3.) Assuming the revision to be within time, this Court on perusal of the impugned order is of the opinion that it has no merits. After submission of charge-sheet under Sections 307/324/147/148/149/504/506/323/427 I.P.C. the Magistrate by the order dated 23.6.98 took cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons including the applicant in revision. The applicant in revision challenged the said order before the Session Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No. 108/98 on the ground that the learned Magistrate himself did not apply his mind and merely signed the order of summoning which was scribed by the Steno of the court. The revision was allowed on the ground that the order of summoning was passed by the learned Magistrate without application of mind. Thereafter by the impugned order the learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order again after assigning reasons.;