Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The present misc. petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.02.1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sikar in Criminal Case No. 117/1993 which has been partly affirmed in the Revision Petition No. 100/2001 by the order dated 11.06.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar. By order dated 27.02.1993, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 332, 504 and 382 IPC.
(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Shri Sumer Singh, Excise Inspector, Sarekhurd, District Alwar lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar on 27.04.1990 for an incident dated 20.04.1990 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners herein came to the Ganganagar Sugar Mill and forcibly took a pass of 5000 bottled of liquor from om Prakash Sharma and also took away liquor bottles without payment of taxes etc. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 113/1993 was registered and investigation commenced. The Police submitted a final report in the matter after detailed investigation and concluded that only a non-cognizable offence under Section 504 IPC has been proved as per the highest allegation made out- by the complainant and his witnesses. The negative final report was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Sikar who adopted, inter alia, a novel procedure and without there being any protest petition by complainant directed summoning of the witnesses who had been examined in the investigation and recorded their statements as CWs. Thereafter, learned Magistrate, by order dated 27.02.1993, proceeded to summon the petitioners for the offences mentioned above. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.1993, the petitioners preferred a petition. The Revisional Court while holding that the procedure adopted in calling the witnesses by the learned Magistrate was absolutely illegal, set aside that portion of the order. but instead, he took upon himself to examine the statements of the very witnesses whose statements were recorded required during the course of investigation and ignoring the reasons given by the Police for the final report, proceeded to uphold cognizance taken against the petitioners by learned Magistrate. It is against the said orders that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present misc. petition.
(3.) Assailing the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned Judicial Magistrate was entirely illegal. Firstly, the Judicial Magistrate was not at all correct in calling for the witnesses without their being a protest petition or complaint to examine them as court witnesses and secondly, the Revisional Court once he came to a finding that the Magistrate has committed an error in recording statements of the witnesses suo moto, then it should not have passed an order whereby the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was approved.;