AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—This revision has been preferred against a short order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 2639/2007, Kashi Nath V. Pankaj Kumar Pandey. The said complaint case was instituted by Kashi Nath against the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar for the offences u/s 217, 504, 506, 342, 500 and 501 IPC. After recording the statement of complainant Kashi Nath, the learned Magistrate, in exercise of his powers u/s 202 Cr.P.C., thought it expedient to get the matter investigated personally by the District Magistrate, Haridwar. Accordingly, learned trial court adjourned the matter and postponed the recording of the statements of witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and ordered the District Magistrate, Haridwar to investigate the matter himself. It is against this order, instant revision has been preferred.
Having heard the learned State Counsel, it would be pertinent to mention the powers of a Judicial Magistrate as adumbrated u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The said provision empowers a Magistrate to postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, .........So, in order to exercise the powers as has been explicated and highlighted above, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered the District Magistrate, Haridwar to investigate the matter himself.
Learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:
(h) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf;
So, it is amply clear that a Judicial Magistrate can entrust the investigation to be conducted either by a police officer or by any such other person, but any such other person does not include the Magistrate. So, as indicated above, impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is infirm and not sustainable.
Consequently, revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 1.6.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 2639/2007, is hereby set aside.
Inform the court concerned accordingly.