LexJASWANT & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. ., ·"' [2009] 8 S.C.R. 701 JASWANT & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1013 of 2009) MAY 13, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.193 - Cognizance A B of offence by Court of Sessions - Order taking cognizance against accused named· in FIR - Said accused C absconding and investigation pending against them - Sustainability of - Held: Unless investigation is completed or evidences are brought on record, Court of Sessions cannot exercise jurisdiction either u/s. 193 ors. 319 - Investigation against accused was pending and was not completed - As D \ , such police report could not be said to have been filed - It has proceeded on the basis that no charge sheet was filed against accused - Thus, order of framing charges against accused is set aside - However, since accused have appeared, investigating officer to submit a final fonn on the E basis of material collected. FIR was lodged against the appellants and others for commission of offence under the Penal Code. Investigating officer filed charge sheet Appellants were F shown as absconding and investigation was pending against them. Cognizance of offence was taken, though no cognizance of offence was taken against the appellant. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions in terms of s. 209 Cr.P.C. Sessions judge framed charges against all the accused named in the FIR G including the appellants. Appellant challenged the order taking cognizance against them. Sessions Judge rejected the application. High Court also rejected the 701 H 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. ~· ~ A revision application. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A cognizance is taken of an offence and B not against the offender. Section 193 Cr.P.C., however, bars a Court of Sessions to take cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction although a court of Magistrate has t " that power. When a police report is filed, it is only the Magistrate concerned who is empowered to take cogni,~ance of an offence. ~ police report cannot be said c to have been filed before a competent court when investigation in respect of some of the accused although named in the First Information Report remain pendir:ig. Section 173(2) subject to the provisions of sub-section (8) thereof envisages that a final report can be filed only ,_ D when an investigation is completed and not prior thereto. [Paras; 12 and 14] [712-A-C] Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 1167, referred to. E 1.2. In absence of any power to take cognizance of - an offence, the Sessions Judge, therefore, could have taken recourse only to the provisions contained ins. 319 • CrPC. For the purpose of attracting the said provision, )> I . keeping in view the extraordinary power conferred F thereunder upon a Sessions Court, orders summoning additional accused could have been passed only on the basis of some evidences brought before the Court during the trial. Such a power, therefore, can be exercised only when such a case is made out. Proper application of G mind on the part of Sessions Judge in that behalf is imperative in character. [Paras 15 and 16] [712-D-G] -- Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC 149; Guriya @ Tabassum Taquir & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2007) 8 H ... .. JASWANT & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 703 ...._~ SCC 227 and Gangu/a Ashok v. State of AP (2000) 2 SCC A 504, relied on. 1.3. The Sessions Judge appears to have issued a direction that the charge sheet be filed before a competent court. Even such a direction, indisputably, is B illegal. A court of sessions, apart from the legal hurdle ,r~ that it cannot take cognizance of an offence in exercise of its original jurisdiction, even otherwise was not empowered to direct the investigating officer to submit a charge sheet. [Para 17) [713-G-H; 714-A] c 1.4. The power to take cognizance of an offence vested in a court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in s. 190 Cr.P.C. It could have exercised its ~ power only upon its satisfaction that one or the other ·~c clause contained therein is attracted. In a case of this D nature, admittedly, the power to take cognizance emanates from clause (b) of sub-section (1) of s. 190. [Para 18) [714-A-B] ~,.- 1.5. Investigation against the appellants was pending. E t It was not completed. If it was not completed, the statutor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.