KANTA BHATNAGAR,J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated July 6, 1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur on the report filed by one Kanji, Sarpanch Pal Sarada, on May 24, 1972 before the Superintendent of Police Udaipur regarding the illegality committed in distribution of grain by Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti, Pal Sarada, by its Manager Rooplal and Dadamchand, who without being authorised misused the permit regarding Jawar, Maize and Wheat in the year 1 969 -70, The police after investigation filed challan against the Manager Rooplal under Section 402 I.P.C. and requested the Court that as no case against Dadamchand was made out he may be released under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The final report so given against petitioner Dadamchand was accepted by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Salumber on December 6, 1978. Though challan was not filed against petitioner Dadamchand, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted an application on December 8, 1981 praying for taking cognizance against him. The learned Magistrate by the order dated May 31, 1982 took cognizance of the offence under Section 419 I.P.C. against the petitioner Dadam Chand. Petitioner Dadamchand challenged the legality of the order in the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The case on transfer reached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur who by the order dated July 6, 1984 dismissed the revision petition.
(2.) FEELING dissatisfied by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, the petitioner Dadamchand has invoked the inherent power of this Court by filing the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Magistrate, as confirmed by the revisional Court, on the ground that the learned Magistrate has legally erred in taking cognizance against the petitioner when the final report filed by the Police had already been accepted. Mr. Singhvi emphasized that a judicial order cannot be set aside by the Court passing it According to Mr. Singhvi, after the police filing the report Under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court accepting the same, the Court had become functus officio and no order inconsistent with that order could have been passed. To substantiate his contention Mr. Singhvi placed reliance on the principle enunciated in the case of Mangilal v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. 1979 WLN (UC) 88
(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor controverted these contentions and submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the final report was an administrative order and could have been recalled at any time if in the opinion of the Court the case against the petitioner was prima facie made out. The learned Public Prosecutor referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Ramswaroop v. The State 1951 RLW 83 where in the order passed on a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to be an administrative order. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the case referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner being the subsequent authority has rightly been not followed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge passing the impugned order.;