Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2878 (RAJ)

Shyam Sunder Sukhija v. State of Rajasthan

2006-10-12

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.PC., the petitioner has assailed two orders; one dated 4.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh (for short the revisional court' hereinafter) in criminal revision No. 64/2004 and consequential order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh, (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) dated 31.5.2005. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the revisional court as well as by the trial court. 3. It appears that on the report lodged by non-petitioners No. 2 and 3, the police filed the negative final report, which was accepted by the trial court. That order came to be challenged by the non-petitioners No. 2 and 3, who are the complainant before the revisional court. The revisional court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order accepting the negative final report and the matter was remanded to the trial court with a direction to further inquire with regard to the comparison of tap cassette in question, which is subject-matter of the case. In compliance of the order of the revision court dated 4.5.2005, the trial court passed the order dated 31.5.2005 directing to record the voice of the person whose voice is sought to be in the said cassette and send to Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion and thereafter to file the investigation report. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the revisional court is beyond the scope of section 398 Cr.PC., which empowers the Sessions Judge while examining any record under section 397 to order inquiry. Section 398 Cr.PC. provides that on examining any record under section 397 CrPC. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the revisional court is beyond the scope of section 398 Cr.PC., which empowers the Sessions Judge while examining any record under section 397 to order inquiry. Section 398 Cr.PC. provides that on examining any record under section 397 CrPC. or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrate 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. Keeping in view the provisions of section 398 Cr.PC., in my view, the revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction while ordering further inquiry directing the trial court to compare the tap cassette. The revisional court could have directed to hold further inquiry in the matter. However, it appears from the order of the trial court dated 31.5.2005 that the trial court in compliance of the order has already directed to compare the tap cassette and send to the FSL. 6. In the result, the order of revisional court is modified to the extent that the matter has been remanded to the trial court to hold the further inquiry and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The subsequent order passed by the trial court to the extent directing the recording of the voice and comparison of the tap cassette is set aside. However, it will be open for the trial court to hold the further inquiry in the manner which it thinks fit. 7. The petition is disposed of. Ad interim stay order dated 2.8.2005 is vacated. The stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition Disposed of as above. *******