ROOP RANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This Revision has been directed against the order dated 20-7-1993 passed by the Special Judge, (D. A. A.) Hamirpur in case No. 115/92 under Section 395, I. P. C. By that order the learned Judge summoned the revisionists and fixed the case on 25-8-1993 for appearance. The Ap peal was admitted on 5-10-1993 and further proceeding of this case was stayed.

(2.) SRI B. N. Singh appearing for the revisionists has submitted that there is no ingredient of Section 395,i. P. C. in this case. He has submitted that the intention which has been disclosed in the petition of com plaint, does not amount to commit dacoity. tie has referred Annexure 3, application dated 1-10- 1993 filed by respondent No. 2, the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the revisionists went to the spot with lathis and assaulted him. There is also allegation of looting the properties. He has referred the case of Hukum Chandamalikchand and othersv. M. B. Poddar and another, AIR 1973 SC 540, wherein it is stated that a revision petition, once admitted has to be disposed of on merits. He has also referred the case of Uma Kant Pandey v. A. C. J. M. , 1966 ACC 879 (DB ). Referring these two decisions the learned counsel has submitted that the al legation of the other side that the revision is not maintainable since the impugned order is an interlocutory order does not hold ground as the instant revision has been ad mitted on 5-10-1993. So in view of the Hukumchand Amalikchands case (supra) it has to be disposed of on merits. He has also submitted that in Umakant Pandey's case (supra) it has been held that the revision-ap plication is maintainable against the order summoning accused persons.

(3.) IN Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan and another, AIR 1980 SC 1780, it has been held that meticulous analysis of evidence at the stage of taking cognizance is an error amounting to irregularity if not illegality. It has also been held that the Magistrate has to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complainant and the evidence recorded during the preliminary enquiry under Sec tions 200 and 202 there is a prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. All that he has to see is whether or not there is "sufficient grounds for proceeding" against the accused. At this stage the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if it was the trial Court.