- (1.) Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2010 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah in Complaint Case No. 57 of 2009 ( Ranvir Vs. Ajay Pal and others), whereby the complaint of the revisionist has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Judge at the time of issuing of process has meticulously appreciated the evidence which was beyond his jurisdiction as he was only to see whether prima facie cognizable offence was disclosed against the accused persons or not. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court Kewal Krishan Vs. Suraj Bhan and Another, 1980 Supp1 SCC 499 wherein it has been held that: " At the stage of Sections 203 and 204 in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, all that the magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. All that he has to see is whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If there is prima facie evidence, that will be a sufficient ground for issuing process to the accused and committing them for trial to the Court of Session. The standard to be adopted by the magistrate in scrutinising the evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges. At this stage of Sections 203 and 204, the magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial Court.";