Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3125 (RAJ)

RAM KARAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2006-11-29

HARBANS LAL

body2006
Judgment HARBANS LAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition u/s 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the common order dated 30. 7. 1999 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar in Cr. Revision Petition No. 86/96 and 28/97. Both these revision petitions were filed against a common order dated 30. 7. 1996 of the learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danta ramgarh, District Sikar vide which cognizance for offences under Sections 147, 343, 323 and 325/149 IPC was taken against seven persons. Both these revision petitions were heard and decided by a common order which is under challenge in this petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 sikar dismissed Revision No. 28/97 the accused and allowed Revision No. 86/96 filed by the complainant and in addition to other offences took cognizance for the offence under section 304 Part-I and Part-II IPC and directed the learned court below to commit the case to the court of sessions for trial as the said offence was exclusively triable by the court of sessions. ( 2 ) THE sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner which has not been controverted by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and has rather been fairly conceded is that the revisional court could not have taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence. It could have at best directed the learned Magistrate to make further inquiry and to pass fresh order in respect thereof in the light of its observations. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the case of Nikku Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. in support of his conention: ( 3 ) I have considered the submissions in the light of the materials on record. Section 398 of the Code reads as under : - 395. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the case of Nikku Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. in support of his conention: ( 3 ) I have considered the submissions in the light of the materials on record. Section 398 of the Code reads as under : - 395. 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 be made." ( 4 ) IN Ram Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, while explaining the scope of Section 398 of the Code, this Court observed that in revision, the Court of Sessions cannot direct the trial Court to take cognizance and only a direction to hold further inquiry can be given. ( 5 ) IN Lalita (Smt.) v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. , this Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 393 of the Code, the revisional court could have only directed for passing of fresh order after further inquiry. Explaining the meaning of "further inquiry", this Court has held that further inquiry only means reconsideration of the existing material. ( 6 ) THUS, in view of the settled law and keeping in view the provisions of Section 398 of the Code, the order of the revisional Court to the extent it has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 304 Part-I and Part-II IPC and directed that the case be committed for trial cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 30. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 30. 7 1999 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar is hereby set aside to the extent of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 304 part-I and Part-II IPC and the trial court is directed to make further inquiry into the matter and pass appropriate fresh order after re-consideration of the existing material on record. It is also made clear that "further inquiry" means re-consideration of the existing materials. ( 8 ) RECORD of the trial Court be returned forthwith. Petition allowed accordingly.