Ajai Singh and Others vs Nakhru and Another

R.K. Singh, J.—None appears for the revisionists.

The revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.11.87. By the impugned order the learned Munsif Magistrate. Ghazipur, has taken cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 395, I.P.C. The grounds taken in the revision petition are that the Court did not examine the witnesses cited in the complaint petition for satisfaction to take cognizance and the provisions of Section 202(2), Code of Criminal Procedure have not been complied with.

The provisions of Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure does not make mandatory to examine all the witnesses cited in the complaint petition. It is for the satisfaction of the Magistrate if he proceeds to examine the witnesses then only it is required that all the witnesses should be asked to be produced by the complainant. In the impugned order the Magistrate has not decided to examine the witnesses before taking cognizance. He has heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the complainant and has perused the documents produced on record. On the basis of the materials available documentary and oral evidence, he has disclosed his satisfaction that the offence u/s 395, I.P.C. is disclosed for which he has taken cognizance. In the impugned order there is no illegality and no violation of law.

The revision petition does not disclose merit and the same is dismissed. The office is directed to send a copy of the order to the Munsif-Magistrate, Ghazipur, who is directed to proceed with the hearing of the Criminal Case No. 446 of 1987 expeditiously, the proceedings of which was stayed by this Court by the interim order dated 26th April, 1998. The interim order dated 26th April, 1988 stands discharged.