Bhagwan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

G.S.N. Tripathi, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 21.9.95 passed by the I Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra in State v. Dal Chand and Ors. S.T. No. 461 of 94, whereby he has ordered the summoning of the accused revisionist purportedly u/s 193, Code of Criminal Procedure.

A.F.I.R was lodged on 20.9.93, in which Bhagwan Singh, revisionist was named alongwith other co-accused persons. It is alleged that all of them in prosecution of a common object of an unlawful assembly, which they had formed, attacked the prosecution side causing injuries to Teja Singh, Ram Kishore, Suraj Mal, Smt. Maya Devi, Smt. Babli, Lal Singh and Chandra Bhan with phrases, sariya''s lathies, etc.

On the basis of the report, the case was registered and the investigation followed. The police submitted a charge-sheet against all the accused persons, including the accused Bhagwan Singh, revisionist.

When the matter came up before the learned Magistrate concerned, the committing court, on the date of the passing of the committal order, accused Bhagwan Singh was absent. The learned Magistrate committed all the accused

but he did not mention Bhagwan Singh as amongst the accused, whose case was being committed.

An application dated 1.8.95 was moved by Ram Narain, complainant before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra, purportedly u/s 193, Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that some allegations have been made against all the accused, including Bhagwan Singh in the F.I.R. but incidentally the case of Bhagwan Singh was not committed to the Court of Session. Therefore, he should be summoned. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, by virtue of the impugned order, summoned the accused Bhagwan Singh to face trial although his case was not committed.

Feeling aggrieved against this order, this revision has been preferred.

I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist. There is none for the opposite party. No counter-affidavit has been filed.

u/s 193, Code of Criminal Procedure, it has been provided as follows:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.

Therefore, prima facie, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter unless the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.

Admittedly, the accused Bhagwan Singh was not committed to the Court of Session. Therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra could not have passed the impugned order. Of course, he could have passed an order u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But that was possible only after recording the evidence of some of P. Ws. and specially, after conclusion of their cross-examination as a whole. The other course open was that the complainant could have moved the learned Magistrate ex. Committing Magistrate concerned with a request that the case of Bhagwan Singh be also committed to the Court of Session. But these courses were not adopted and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra stretched the case for trial before him as an original (sic) jurisdiction court, which he did not possess the power to do. This order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction and wrong and the same deserves to be set aside.

The revision is allowed. The order dated 21.9.95 passed by the I Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra is set aside. It is made clear that the learned I Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra can still exercise the jurisdiction u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure after following the procedure prescribed, or the case of Bhagwan is committed by the learned Magistrate.