- (1.) A. Mateen, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri S. C. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
(2.) THIS petition has been preferred by the revisionist having aggrieved against judgment and order dated 19-1-2001 passed in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2000 by means of which learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda remanded the case to the Magistrate concerned with a direction that the application for discharge moved by the revisionist under Section 239 Cr. P. C. be reconsidered and necessary orders be passed on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation. The crux of the matter is that charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gonda under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/364 IPC against accused persons, namely, Swami Nath, Savitri Devi and Guru Dev relating to case crime No. 268 of 1995 of P. S. Kotwali Nagar, Gonda. This charge sheet was outcome of an F. I. R. lodged by one Smt. Nirmala Devi. The Court of Magistrate taking cognizance, issued non-bailable warrants. Thereafter an application under Section 239 Cr. P. C. was moved by the revisionists for discharge upon which the learned Magistrate considering the same, vide order dated 11-1- 2000 discharged the accused revisionists. Smt. Nirmala Devi preferred Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2000 before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda who by means of order dated 19-1-2000 came to the conclusion that the Magistrate while disposing of the application under Section 239 Cr. P. C. had acted beyond the scope and had taken into consideration certain documents which did not form part of the material collected during the course of investigation. As such, he remanded the case to the Magistrate concerned with a direction to reconsider the matter on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation and further directed that charges be framed against the accused persons.
(3.) WHILE considering the revisional order as well as the order of the Magistrate, this Court is of the view that the reasons adopted by the learned Sessions Judge for remanding the case are germane and in accordance with the procedure established by law. However, the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction to the effect whereby he has directed the Magistrate concerned to frame charges against the accused persons. No doubt, the reasonings adopted by the learned Sessions Judge allowing the revision and remanding the case to the Magistrate concerned are in accordance with law, but the learned Sessions Judge has legally erred in issuing a direction with respect to framing of charges against the accused persons.;