- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. Mr. R. K. Porwal is present for the revisionist and A. G. A. for the State.
(2.) A notice under Section 107/116, Cr. P. C. was issued by S. D. M. Bharthana, district Etawah to one Jyoti son of Deepak resident of Brijraj Nagar, House No. 80 near Jain Temple at village Bharthana. The notice was issued at the instance of Prem Shanker Gupta, who was retired officer and had filed an application dated 23-11-93 that Jyoti son of Deepak is causing breach of peace. Some how a revision against the order was filed by Jyoti minor daughter of Sri Krishan and the learned In charge Ses sions Judge, Etawah (Sri VD. Dubey) has set aside the order on the ground that there was no justification to issue a notice under Section 107/116, Cr. P. C. against a girl of tender years. It appears from the order passed by learned Sessions Judge that he was aware that the complaint is against a boy and the revision has been filed by a girl. In the impugned order he says "nobody can even imagine that the gender will be changed by the Police personnel and a PCS Officer will abuse the authority". The learned Sessions Judge has recommended to the State Government to withdraw criminal powers of the Magistrate on the ground that the Magistrate has demanded security bonds and personal bond of Rs. 20,000 to be furnished by such a small girl.
(3.) IT appears that the notice meant for Jyoti son of Deepak was wrongly served by the police on some girl bearing the same name. The learned Sessions Judge should not have entertained the revision filed by a person who was absolutely unconcerned. The impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to complainant Prem Shanker Gupta. Had a notice been issued to him, he would have explained that the revision has been filed by a wrong person. It is apparent from what has been stated above that the remarks passed by the learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Etawah against the S. D. M. are unwar ranted.;