Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1096 (ALL)

SUKHAL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHAND ANR.

2001-11-28

U.S.TRIPATHI

body2001
U. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. and perused the record. ( 2 ) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 22-5-2001 passed by Sessions Judge, kushinagar at Padrauna allowing the criminal revision No. 151 of 2001 filed by Jiyut, opposite party No. 2 remanding the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for decision afresh after trial. ( 3 ) IT appears that applicants stood surety in a case under Sections 323, 324 and 325, I. P. C. relating to P. S. Kubersthan, erstwhile district Deoria (now Padrauna ). It is further alleged that in the said case the applicants. filed certain forged documents in support of their solvency. During trial of the said case it was detected that the documents filed by applicants in proof of their solvency were forged. Accordingly, the complainant of the case Jiyut, opposite party No. 2, moved an application before the Magistrate concerned to initiate a proceeding against the applicants under Section 340, Cr. P. C. The Learned Magistrate initiated above proceeding and concluded that the applicants had committed offences punishable under Sections 205, 419, 468, 471, I. P. C. Accordingly, he filed complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. ( 4 ) DURING pendency of the said case, the applicants moved an application that they are ready to confess their guilty and the case be decided before ensuing Lok Adalat on 9-11-2000. Accordingly, the case was taken before Lok Adalat held on 9-11-2000 and on confessing the guilt by the applicants, the learned Magistrate convicted them under Sections 205, 419, 468 and 471, I. P. C, but sentenced them till rising of the Court. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED with the above inadequacy of sentence, Jiyut opposite party No. 2 filed revision before the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge found that the sentence was highly inadequate and accordingly, he allowed the revision and remanded the case for fresh decision after trial. ( 6 ) THE applicants have challenged above order of the Sessions Judge in this revision. The learned Sessions Judge found that the sentence was highly inadequate and accordingly, he allowed the revision and remanded the case for fresh decision after trial. ( 6 ) THE applicants have challenged above order of the Sessions Judge in this revision. ( 7 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that Jiyut, opposite party No. 2 had no authority to file revision before the Sessions Judge, as he was not complainant in the criminal case filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate against the applicants and that the complaint in the said case was filed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division)/a. C. J. M. Kushinagar at Padrauna. ( 8 ) HAVING gone through the record, I find no force in the above contention. There is bar for filing a complaint by private person in certain offences as mentioned in Section 195, Cr. P. C. and that section requires that complaint under offences mentioned in said section be filed only by the court before whom, the forgery was made. ( 9 ) ON account of it, the opposite party No. 2 could not file complaint. But it is not disputed that proceeding under Section 340, Cr. P. C. was initiated on the complaint made by opposite party no. 2. Therefore, in fact he was complainant and was aggrieved person with the order passed by chief Judicial Magistrate on 9-11-2000 and had right to file revision. ( 10 ) THE next point raised by the learned counsel for the applicants was that by virtue of Section 21 (2) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate became final and it could not be challenged in revision, as the said order was passed in the Lok Adalat. This contention has also no force. Lok Adalat had jurisdiction over the cases as defined under section 19 (5) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which reads as under :a lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. ( 11 ) IT is clear from the said section that if the offence in respect of which the applicants were being tried, was not compoundable under any law, the Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to decide the said case. It is not disputed that the offences for which the applicants were being tried were not compoundable. Therefore, Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to pass any order in the case. The decision of the Magistrate was therefore without jurisdiction. ( 12 ) SO far the merit of the case is concerned, the learned Magistrate had passed sentences, which were too inadequate, as the maximum punishment provided in the offence was 7 years R. I. and the learned Magistrate has sentenced only till rising of the Court. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge rightly set aside the conviction and remanded the case for fresh trial. ( 13 ) THE revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. .