- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. Heard Sri S. D. N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri S. P. S. Raghav, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) IN this revision order dated 17th January, 1996 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, taking cognizance against the revisionists on a charge-sheet submitted by the police has been challenged. The contention is that the cognizance is barred by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as a forged sale-deed was filed in the mutation proceedings before the Tahsildar. From the other side it is pointed out that the original sale deed was never filed and its photostat copy only was filed in the mutation proceeding. Learned counsel for opposite-party No. 2 further contended that successive attempts right from 1993 had been made by filing writ petitions and petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view not to permit the case of proceed. When attempt to get the first information report quashed failed, unsuccessful attempt was made by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the investigation. The impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate on the basis of charge-sheet took cognizance and issued bailable warrants against the revisionists for their appearance. They did not appear and on 16th August, 1996 hence non-bailable warrant was ordered to be issued. In my opinion it is not proper for this Court at this stage to scrutinise the material on record and to record a finding as to whether any forgery was committed and if so whether it was committed in the court of Tahsildar or at Calcutta, as argued by the learned counsel for opposite-party No. 2. This objection can be permitted to be raised before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall after affording opportunity to both the sides decide the same expeditiously within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
(3.) THE order dated 16th August, 1996 does not show that the learned Magistrate was satisfied that bailable warrant was served and executed still the revisionists did not appear before him. Consequently the order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant on 16th August, 19% does not seem to be justified. The revision is finally disposed of with the direction that the revisionist, shall file their objection to the order dated 15th June, 1996 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, within a week from today along with the certified copy of this order. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall after hearing the two sides decide the objection in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of the filing of the objection and the certified copy of this order. Till then the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall insist upon the revisionists to file bail bonds of Rs. 1,000 in pursuance of bailable warrant issued on 15th June, 1996 and they shall not be arrested in pursuance of the order dated 16th August, 1996 till the disposal of their objection filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.;