Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 980 (RAJ)

Micro Marbles v. Stae of Rajasthan

2005-04-04

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-All the aforesaid four revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC have been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 14.09.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh (for short, "the revisional court" hereinafter), by which the revisional Court allowed the revision petitions filed by the respondent No.2; set aside the orders dated 11.07.2003 (dated 24.09.2003 in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 718/2004) passed by thee Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Chittorgarh (Judicial Maqistrate, Gangrar in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 718/2004) (for short, "the trial Court" hereinaftter) and directed the trial Court to take cognizance against the petitioner in the light of the impugned order dated 14.09.2004. Since, identical question of law and facts are involved in these four revision petitions, they are being decided by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Chittorgarh (for short, "the Nigam") provided high-tension electric connection of 150 KV (11,000 volts) to the petitioners. Complaints were filed by the Authority of the Nigam against the petitioners to the effect that on reading the data through computer, it was revealed that the petitioners had committed mischief with the mater and on inquiry, it was found that the petitioners stopped their electric meters and used the electricity from grid and as such they committed the offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. After investigation, the police filed negative final report in all these matters. Vide order dated 11.07.2003 (24.09.2003 in Revision No. 718/2004), the trial Court accepted the negative final report submitted by the polic and dismissed the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for taking cognizance against the petitioners. The respondent No.2, an Authority of the Nigam, filed revision petitions before the revisional Court. The revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 14.09.2004 observed that prima facie there is sufficient evidence on record for taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and directed the trial Court to proceed with the matter in the light of the observation made in the order dated 14.09.2004 after hearing the parties. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the orders passed by the Court below and the record of the case. 4. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the orders passed by the Court below and the record of the case. 4. The only point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the provision of Section 398 Cr. P.C., the revisional Court ought not to have directed the trial Court to take cognizance against the petitioners in the light of the impugned order dated 14.09.2004 passed by the revisional court. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ramsingh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 WLC (Raj.) U.C.563. Section 398 Cr. P.C. reads as under:-"Power to order inquiry. - On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any Subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made." 5. While explaining the scope of Section 398, CrPC, this Court, in Ramsinghs case (supra) observed that in revision, Court of Sessions cannot direct the trial Court to take cognizance, but only a direction to hold further inquiry can be given. 6. In Lalita (Smt.) vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2004 (2) RCrD 545 (Raj.), the trial Court dismissed the complaint and the revisional Court setting aside the order of trial Court, directed to take cognizance of the offence. While setting aside the revisional order, this Court observed that in view of the provisions of Section 398 CrPC, the revisional Court could have only directed for passing of fresh order after further inquiry. Explaining the meaning of "further inquiry", this Court held that further inquiry only means reconsideration of the existing evidence. 7. While setting aside the revisional order, this Court observed that in view of the provisions of Section 398 CrPC, the revisional Court could have only directed for passing of fresh order after further inquiry. Explaining the meaning of "further inquiry", this Court held that further inquiry only means reconsideration of the existing evidence. 7. In the instant case, the revisional Court observed that prima facia there is sufficient evidence on record for taking cognizance against the petitioners and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter in the light of the impugned order and in accordance with after hearing both the parties. In this view of the matter, the revisional Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in directing the trial Court to proceed further in the light of observation made by it in the order impugned. What the revisional court could have done was to direct the trial Court for passing fresh order after further inquiry, i.e., reconsideration of the existing evidence. 8. Consequently, the revision petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.09.2004 passed by the revisional court, to the extent directing the trial Court to proceed further in the light of observation made therein, are set-aside. The trial court is directed to pass appropriate order after reconsideration of the existing material on record. The stay petitions stand disposed of .