LexRAJENDRA RAJORIYA versus JAGAT NARAIN THAPAK AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 499 RAJENDRA RAJORIYA v. JAGAT NARAIN THAPAK AND ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2018) FEBRUARY 23, 2018 [N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.397 and s.398 – Revision – Scope of – Complaint alleging cheating, filed by appellant, dismissed by the magistrate for lack of evidence – On revision, Session judge concluded that the trial court did not appreciate the facts as well as the law in a proper manner and remanded the case – On remand, magistrate took cognizance of the offences and registered the complaint – Meanwhile, aggrieved by the remand order and order taking cognizance, respondent sought revision – High Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the complaint on the reason that the revisional court could not have taken cognizance as the same was in violation of s.398 – Legality of remand order passed by Sessions Court and the order of Magistrate taking cognizance thereafter challenged in the instant appeal – Held: High Court erred in concluding that the Sessions Court had itself taken cognizance of the matter – Sessions Court merely ordered remand for further enquiry – The observations made by the Sessions Court were only justification for a remand and the same did not amount to taking cognizance – High Court clearly misconstrued the Sessions Court order and proceeded on an erroneous footing – On the other hand, the revisional court was also in error to the extent of influencing the Magistrate Court to keep the findings of Sessions Court in mind, while considering the case on remand – The misconception created before the High Court was due to the fact that the remand order provided discretion for the trial court to conduct further enquiry and thereafter consider issuing process – The impugned order of the High court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law – As regards the legality of the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the matter, the Magistrate while taking cognizance has to satisfy himself about the satisfactory grounds to proceed with the complaint and at this stage the consideration should not be whether there is sufficient ground for [2018] 2 S.C.R. 499 499 A B C D E F G H 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R. conviction – At the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is also not required to record elaborate reasons but the order should reflect independent application of mind by the Magistrate to the material placed before him – A perusal of the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance, show that the Magistrate observed that the Sessions court has already made out a prima facie case – Such finding is not sustainable as the revisional court only observed certain aspects in furtherance of remanding the matter – Trial court to consider the complaint afresh. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A perusal of Sections 397 and 398 provisions portray that the revisionary power is exercised either by the Sessions Court or by the High Court and a dismissal of the complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203 of Cr.P.C may be assailed in a criminal revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Section 397 of Cr.P.C empowers the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any subordinate criminal court situate within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such subordinate Court. The extent of the revisionary powers inter alia, is provided under Section 399 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. It is clear from the said provisions that Section 398 has to be read along with other Sections which are equally applicable to the revision petitions filed before the Sessions Court. Section 398 only deals with a distinct power to direct further inquiry, whereas Section 397 read with Section 399 and Section 401 confers power on the revisionary authority to examine correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order. The powers of the revisionary court have to be cumulatively understood in consonance with Sections 398, 399 and 401 of Cr.P.C. [Paras 12, 13] [505-B-F] 2. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, came to an erroneous conclusion that the Sessions Court had itself taken cognizance of the matter. The Sessions Court order should have been construed only as a remand order for further enquiry. The observations made by the Sessions Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.