Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2356 of 2016 Revisionist :- Ajay Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Mool Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manav Chaurasia,Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party and learned A.G.A. for State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.06.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Ist Kaushambi in Criminal Revision No. 10/2016 (Mohd. Shahid Vs. State of U.P. and others) allowing the revision against order dated 15.07.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi. By order dated 15.07.2015, final report submitted by police was rejected and opposite party no. 2 Mohd. Shahid (Inspector) was summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 453, 354-A, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C.
By the impugned order dated 10.06.2016 passed by revisional court, revisional court held that there is no evidence in the case diary against accused/revisionist Mohd. Shahid. Revisionist is a government servant and impugned cognizance order has been passed without any previous sanction of the State Government as per provision of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., which is against law.
Learned counsel for revisionist contended that sanction is not required in this particular case as act of accused was not in discharge of public duty. Revisional court has directed the trial court to pass a fresh order in the light of observation made by revisional court. Revisional court could not make such direction and compel the trial court to pass order according to the view of revisional court.
Learned counsel for opposite party and learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order by trial court.
Learned Magistrate has not mentioned in its order dated 15.07.2015, that there is mateiral available in the police report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance against Mohd. Shahid.
Learned revisional court held that there is no evidence against opposite party no. 2 in police report. Cognizance can be taken under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., only on the availability of evidence in police report.
In view of above, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by revisional court.
However, revisional court cannot direct to Magistrate to pass order according to its own observation.
In the result, instant criminal revision is dismissed.
Learned trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in compliance of order dated 10.06.2016 passed by revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 10/206 ((Mohd. Shahid Vs. State of U.P. and others) without being influenced by order of revisional court or this Court.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018/Sharad/-