M.N. Shukla, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, dated 30 -8 -1967 dismissing the Applicant's revision against an order of discharge passed by a Magistrate First Class. There were 14 persons arrayed as opposite parties in the revision preferred by the Applicant before the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that the Applicant did not file process fee in respect of the opposite party No. 14 on whom the summons remained unserved. For this reason the learned Sessions Judge seized of the revision passed the following order on 30 -8 -1967: No steps taken. The revision is consequently dismissed.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. My attention has not been drawn to any provision of law which enjoins on an Applicant in revision the paying of the process fee in order to effect service of summons on the opposite party or parties. A reference was made in this connection to the provisions of Section 204(3) Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows: 204(3) When by any law for the time being in force any process -fee or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. The question which ultimately arises is as to whether the process fee was payable by the Applicant in respect of the opposite party No. 14 on whom service of summons could not be effected. There is only one provision of law in this connection which was referred to me. It is contained in Rule 17 of the General Rules (Criminal) for Criminal Courts framed Under Section 554(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and runs as follows: 17. The fees hereinafter mentioned shall be chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by criminal courts in the case of offences other than offences for which police officers may arrest without a warrant: (1) Warrant of arrest Rs. 0 50. (2) Summons Rs. 0.25. (3) Proclamation for absconding person Under Section 87 of the Code Rs. 0.50. (4) Warrant of attachment - - (a) in respect of the warrant Rs. 0.50. (b) Where it is necessary to place officers in charge of property attached, in respect each officer so employed, per diem Rs. 0.25. (5) In cases where an application is made by a complainant for the recovery of compensation awarded to him Under Section 250 of the Code -In respect of the warrant for the levy of the fees, fine or compensation Rs. 0.25. Provided that no fee shall be chargeable on any summons to attend as a juror or assessor for the trial of an accused person: Provided also that no fee shall be chargeable by any process issued upon the complaint or application of any public officer as defined in Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when acting as such public officer, or of any railway servant as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Railways Act, 1820, when acting as such railway servant or of an officer or servant of a local authority acting in that capacity: Provided also that the Presiding Officer of the Court may remit in whole or in part a fee chargeable under this rule, whenever he is satisfied that the person applying for the issue of the process has not the means of paying it. Rule 18 of the aforesaid General Rules (Criminal) provides that a process shall not be drawn for execution or service unless the fee chargeable Under Rule 17 has been paid or remitted. Therefore, the crucial question is as to whether the process fee was chargeable and the Applicant was liable to pay it under the law and in default could his revision be dismissed. It is obvious from a perusal of Rule 17 of the General Rule (Criminal) that it is only in respect of a non -cognizable offence that the process mentioned in the rule is chargeable. The offences in respect of which the complaint was filed by the application in the present case and which has given rise to this revision were Under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC. They are all cognizable offences. Hence, the Applicant was not liable to pay any process fee for services of summons on opposite party No. 14. The revision has been properly instituted and it was the duty of the court disposing of the revision to see that proper service was effected on the parties arrayed in the revision. There was no duty cast on the Applicant. In the circumstances the order dismissing the revision for non prosecution was apparently illegal and must be set aside. I, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and send the case back with the direction that the revision be disposed of in accordance with law after effecting service of summons on the parties concerned.;