R.K. Rastogi, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment and order dated 30.7.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge 1st Basti in Criminal Revision No. 165 of 1997 Ram Chandra Tripathi v. State. The list has been revised. Learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA are present. None is present for the complainant-opposite party No. 2.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint against the accused-revisionist under sec tions 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar which was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 603 of 1992 Ram Chandra Tripathi v. Hanuman Sharan Pandey and others. The learned Magistrate after taking evidence of the complainant and his witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was of the view that no case against the accused-revisionist was made out and he dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. vide his order dated 19.7.1997. Aggrieved with that order the complainant-opposite party No. 2 filed criminal revision No. 425 of 1993 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Basti who allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for hearing the complainant on the point of summoning the accused persons in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. This time, the learned Magistrate after hearing the complainant was of the view that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons under sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 IPC and so he passed an order on 12.12.1994 summoning the ac cused persons. The accused feeling aggrieved with the above order moved an application dated 25.2.1995 (Paper No. 12-B) supported with an affidavit (Paper No. 13-B) for recall of the above order dated 12.12.1994. This application was allowed by the Magistrate vide his order dated 5.5.1997; the summon ing order was recalled and the complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.
(3.) THE complainant feeling ag grieved with the above order filed Crl. Re vision No. 165 of 1997. This revision was heard and decided by Sri U.C. Tiwari, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Basti. After hearing the revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti was of the view that there was sufficient material to summon the accused persons and the order passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint was erroneous. He, therefore, set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Magistrate and passed an order directing the Magis trate to summon the accused persons under sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471IPC. Ag grieved with that order, the accused revi sionists filed this revision. It is to be seen that the scope of criminal revision is limited one. A Revisional Court while hearing a revision can hold that the lower Court had not properly appreciated the evidence and can set aside the findings recorded by the Trial Court but the revisional Court has got no juris diction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Trial Court. In the present case, the position is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had ju risdiction to hold that the findings of fact recorded by the Magistrate were erroneous and were not based on evidence and that the Magistrate had not properly appreci ated the evidence, but he could not himself take the job of re-appreciating the evidence and hold that prima facie case for summon ing the accused persons under sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 IPC was made out. The proper course for him, after holding that the findings of fact recorded by the Magistrate were erroneous, was to remand the matter to the Magistrate with a direction to reassess the evidence, but the order that a case was made out to summon the accused persons under sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 IPC was passed in excess of his jurisdiction. This was a jurisdictional error committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and so this revision de serves to be allowed to this extent only that the order passed by the Additional Ses sions Judge directing the Magistrate to summon tike accused persons under sec tions 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 IPC is set aside and the matter is remanded to the, Court of the Magistrate to rehear the parties on the application 12-B and then pass suitable order. In this connection, it is also to be seen that at the stage of passing order on the application for discharge paper No. 12-B, only the complaint allegations and the evidence produced by the complainant in support of those allegations are to be taken into consideration and the accused can make this submission only that no case was made out against the accused on the basis of the complaint allegations and that the evidence produced by the complainant also failed to make out any case against them. The defence version of the accused and the defence evidence if any produced by them are not to be considered at this stage and they are to be considered at the r proper stage during trial. The learned Magistrate shall decide the application 12-B moved by the accused in the light of the above observations. Since the matter is of the year 1987, the Magistrate shall try to decide it expeditiously.;