Taking Cognizance By Magistrate And Then By Sessions Judge After Committal Against Same Accused For Different Offences Is Illegal: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court observed that taking cognizance in part by a Magistrate and then after committal by a Sessions Judge against the Accused for different offences in legally impressible and bad in law.
The Petitioners-Accused(s) filed a revision petition assailing the validity and legality of a cognizance order passed by Sessions Judge, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 341, 325, 379, 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and arrest warrants were issued against few Accused. Nine Accused Persons challenged the aforementioned order.
The Impugned Order was challenged in two parts i.e. taking cognizance twice against the Petitioners-Accused 1 to 3 and taking cognizance against the Petitioners-Accused Nos.4 to 9 who were not charge-sheeted.
The Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed “The Additional Sessions Judge has thus by the impugned order has taken fresh cognizance against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 under Section 307 of I.P.C., therefore, such a course of action cannot be held to be in accordance with law. No doubt, on committal of the case by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions with reference to Section 209 Cr.P.C., the restrictions on the powers of Court of Sessions, including that of the Additional Sessions Judge, would get lifted as in that event the Court of Sessions/Additional Sessions Judge would exercise such power as a Court of “original jurisdiction”. But a conjoint reading of Section 193 and 209 Cr.P.C., would make it clear that the situation wherein part cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and part cognizance has been taken by the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be held to be legally permissible. Hence, the impugned subsequent order dated 11.02.2019 passed against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 is not legally sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.”
Advocate Rajveer Singh appeared for the Petitioners while Public Prosecutor Atul Sharma appeared for the Respondents.
For the second issue i.e cognizance against Accused 4 to 9 who were not charge sheeted, the Court held, “Since prima facie evidence were found against the petitioner Nos.4 to 9 by the trial Court, the cognizance has rightly been taken against them in exercise of the powers contained under Section 193 Cr.P.C., without waiting for the stage carved out under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no perversity in the impugned order dated 11.02.2019 to the extent of petitioner Nos.4 to 9 and the same is found to be correct and valid, hence the same is upheld.”
The Court relied on the Apex Court judgment in Dharam Pal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr. (2014), Rafiusshan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.(2021) Balveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) and Nahar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr (2022) and said that it is clear that the Court of Sessions is empowered to take cognizance against those persons under section 193 Cr.P.C. who have been left by the police and who have not been arrayed as Accused by the investigating authorities with the charge sheet.
Accordingly, the impugned order stood set aside and quashed qua Petitioners-Accused 1 to 3; and upheld qua Petitoners-Accused 4 to 9.
Cause Title: Laxman Singh@Bunty and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocates Rajveer Singh and P L Saini
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Atul Sharma, Advocates Sankalp Sogani and Muskan Verma