AMAR SARAN,J. - (1.) CASE called out in the revised list. None appears for the opp. party nos. 2 to 6, although the case was listed? peremptorily.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the complainant-revisionist and the learned A.G.A. An order dated 6.1.2001, passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge Hardoi allowing the revision preferred by opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and setting aside the order, dated 1.4.2000, passed by IInd A.C.J.M, Hardoi summoning the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 6 in Case No. 1 of 1998 arising out of case crime No. 216 of 1997, under Sections 143, 302, 201, 328, 304 and 506 I.P.C, P.S. Lonar, district Hardoi,has been challenged by means of this criminal revision.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was given by the revisionist on 27.6.1997 and after calling for a report from the police station,which was received on 13.3.1997, it was rejected on 6.10.1997. However, on an? FIR dated 21.11.1997, the order dated 1.4.2000 summoning the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 6 was passed by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi. The revisional court? as mentioned above has set aside this order on the ground that the jurisdiction for hearing the cases under Sections 302, 304B and 396 I.P.C lays with the Chief Judicial Magistrate because of an administrative circular, issued by the High Court and that the order could not have been passed by the 2nd A.C.J.M. Under Section 460(e) Cr.P.C, it is clearly provided that if the magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 190, but he takes cognizance, the said irregularity does not vitiate the proceedings merely on the ground of being not so empowered. In this connection, it has been held in? Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others; 1999 Cri L.J 4325 by the Apex Court that when any magistrate of Ist class who has the power to take cognizance of an offence, even if the offence was committed outside his jurisdiction, the order of taking cognizance is not vitiated merely on the ground that the magistrate did not have power to try the offence. Therefore, this submission of learned counsel for the revisionist has merit. ;