Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1735 (ALL)

Ram Naresh v. State of U. P. & Ors.

2010-05-24

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI

body2010
Shri Kant Tripathi, J.:- Heard Sri RC Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") for quashing the order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No. 410 of 2008 (Satyaveer v Ram Naresh Kotedar & another). 3. It appears that the Investigating Officer after investigation of the case related to Crime No. 14 of 2007 under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Satrikh, District Barabanki submitted a final report and the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki, vide the order dated 24.07.2008 accepted the final report. The respondent no. 3, who was not the complainant but had given complaint on whose basis search was made, filed the aforesaid criminal revision against the order of the Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision and remitted the matter to the Magistrate for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the revision was not maintainable in view of the fact that the respondent no. 3 was neither the complainant nor had the locus to file the revision. 5. The learned AGA on the other hand submitted that the revision filed by the respondent no. 3 was nothing except to draw the attention of the learned Sessions Judge to exercise his revisional juridiction in regard to the illegality committed by the Magistrate in accepting the final report without giving any notice to the complainant. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the complainant of the case had not been served with a notice, therefore, acceptance of the final report was not proper. In my opinion it is well settled that whenever any final report is filed the complainant is entitled to be heard against the report, therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to give a notice to the complainant and provide him an opportunity of hearing before accepting the final report. 7. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revision at the instance of opposite no. 3 was not maintainable is concerned, it has also no substance. 7. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revision at the instance of opposite no. 3 was not maintainable is concerned, it has also no substance. The learned revisional court found that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed a material illegality in accepting the final report without giving notice to the complainant, therefore, he was perfectly justified in interfering with the matter in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. Section 397 of the Code empowers the High Court as well as the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. This revisional jurisdiction can be exercised at the instance of a person having interest in the matter or suo-moto. The respondent no. 3 seems to be a person, highly interested in the matter, in view of the fact that it was he, who had made a complaint to the authorities, and on his pursuation the revisionist's shop was inspected by the Supply Inspector and after inspection an FIR was lodged by him. In this view of the matter the revision preferred by the respondent no. 3 was by way of attracting the motion of the Sessions Judge to exercise revisional jurisdiction. If the Additional Sessions Judge acted on that motion and exercised his revisional jurisdiction and found that the order passed by the Magistrate was unwarranted in law, he was perfectly justified in interfering with the matter and passing the impugned order dated 23.04.2010. Therefore, the order of the revisional court, which seems to be proper and based on the settled principles of law, cannot be set aside only on the ground that the respondent no. 3 was not competent to file the revision. 8. The case has been remanded to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for a fresh order, therefore, no prejudice seems to have been caused to the revisionist on account of the revisional order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.