# Revisionist v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 431
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-03-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1241 of 2011
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41867
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Proceding:-Section 210offence under Section 302-on the basis
of
material
available
Magistrate
Committed
the
case
for
Trail-after
committal on complaint revisionist also
found
involved-Summoning
Order
Challenged
on
background
after
committal of case-Magistrate became
functus
officio-held-misconceived-case
was
never
committed-against
revisionist-in absence of any material
during investigation-order passed by
Magistrate perfectly justified.

## Text

1 All] Jile Singh V. State of U.P. and another
431
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1241 of 2011

Jile Singh

 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri C.B. Singh

Counsel for the opposite Party:
Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Proceding:-Section 210offence under Section 302-on the basis
of
material
available
Magistrate
Committed
the
case
for
Trail-after
committal on complaint revisionist also
found
involved-Summoning
Order
Challenged
on
background
after
committal of case-Magistrate became
functus
officio-held-misconceived-case
was
never
committed-against
revisionist-in absence of any material
during investigation-order passed by
Magistrate perfectly justified.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

1. Heard Sri C.B. Singh, learned
counsel for the revisionist, Sri Lalit Kumar
Shukla for the complainant, learned A.G.A.
and perused the record.

2. By this revision summoning order
dated 3.1.2011 passed by the C.J.M.,
Mathura in complaint case no. 3100 of
2009, Tek Chanda Sharma Vs. Jile Singh
and other, for offences under section
302,201 I.P.C. has been challenged.

3. The incident, in the present case
relates with murder of Bharat Lal, in respect
of which an F.I.R. was got registered
against unknown persons. Investigation
which ensued ultimately culminating in
charge sheet Hari Singh as an accused for
the crime. Findings his case triable by Court
of Sessions, the same was committed for his
trial to the Sessions Court where it is still
continuining.

4. Informant, on being aggrieved by
non-filing of charge sheet against the
revisionist, thought it appropriate to file a
complaint case against the revisionist for
committing murder of Bharat Lal. C.J.M.
took cognizance of the offence and after
observing due procedure prescribed for
complaint case summoned the revisionist
vide order dated 3.1.2011 which order now
has been assailed in the instant revision.

5. Supporting the revision, learned
counsel for the revisionist submits that
under Section 309 of the Code, the entire
case in respect of murder of Bharat Lal was
committed to the Sessions Court on the
earlier occasion of another accused Hari
Singh and, therefore, cognizance qua
revisionist on a subsequent occasion by
C.J.M. in respct of that very case is
unsanctified. Learned counsel for the
revisionist
further
submits
that
after
committal of case qua Hari Singh, C.J.M.
had become functus officio. He further
contends that once the charge sheet has
been submitted in respect of a crime, no
further complaint can be entertained in
respect of same incident nor anybody else
can be added as an accused. In support of
his submissions, learned counsel based his
opinion on the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Jai Chandra Singh and
another Vs. State of Punjab and another
(1997) 1 SCC 345.
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

6.

Learned
A.G.A.
conversely
submitted
illucidely
and
elaborating
procedure prescribed for complaint case and
committal proceedings that if an accused is
not tried along with the charge sheeted
accused then complaint in his respect is
maintainable and such an accused can be
proceeded with for the same crime and
offence. In this respect, learned A.G.A.
drew support from Section 210 Cr.P.C.

7. Considering rival contentions, no
force is found in the submissions of learned
counsel for the revisionist. Facts as
mentioned above indicate that in respect of
murder of Bharat Lal, police investigated
the offence but charge sheeted only Hari
Singh. Present revisionist Jile Singh was not
an accused in the aforesaid police charge
sheet.
Complainant-informant
had
no
reason to array Jile Singh as an accused
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the reason
that police papers did not contain any
allegation against him. For him to prosecute
Jile Singh on the basis of such police
investigation would have been a futile effort
although,
informant-complainant
had
credible material with him to rope Jile
Singh also for the charge of murder. Having
such an opinion, complainant though it fit to
lodge a complaint against Jile Singh. C.J.M.
committed no illegality in entertaining the
said complaint. After due observance of the
procedure prescribed for complaint case for
offence triable by Court of Sessions that the
C.J.M. has summoned the revisionist to
stand trial for the murder of Bharat Singh.
The procedure so adopted by C.J.M. does
not amount to filing of two cases in respect
of same accused. In respect of single
incident,
different
persons
can
be
prosecuted on the basis of different
evidences but inconsonance with judicial
discipline, the trial of all those persons
should be conducted jointly by the same
court to avoid contrary findings. It can not
be said that in a complaint case different
accused can
not be
prosecuted for
committing murder of the same person
when other accused has been charge sheeted
by the police.

8. Contention of learned counsel for
the revisionist that case which is committed
under Section 309 Cr.P.C. makes court of
magistrate functus officio in respect of other
accused in the same crime, therefore, cannot
be expected and is hereby repelled. Another
reason for not accepting the said prayer is
that committal of case preceds compliance
of section 207 Cr.P.C. Under that section,
copies of the documents are handed over to
the accused and only thereafter, his case is
committed to the Sessions Court. Thus,
although, the case is committed to the
Sessions Court under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
but it is in respect of a particular accused.
There
cannot
be
any
commitment
proceeding in absence of accused or in
respect of a person who was not arrayed as
an accused at that stage. Contention so
raised by counsel for the revisionist,
therefore, is wholly un-impressive, meritless
and is hereby rejected.

9. Another important aspect to be
noted at this juncture is that Section 210
Cr.P.C. provides that in respect of identicle
incident, if an accused is not being
prosecuted on the basis of a police charge
sheet, then he can be tried in a complaint
case instituted by the same complainant. For
a ready reference, the provision of Section
210 Cr.P.C. is reproduced below;

"(1) When in a case instituted
otherwise
than
on
a
police
report
(hereinafter referred to as a complaint
case), it is made to appear to the
Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry
1 All] Union of India and others V. State of U.P. and another
433
or trial held by him, that an investigation by
the police is in progress in relation to the
offence which is the subject-matter of the
inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate
shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or
trial and call for a report on the matter
from the police officer conducting the
investigation.

(2) If a report is made by the
investigating police officer under section
173 and on such export cognizance of any
offence is taken by the Magistrate against
any person who is an accused in the
complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire
into or try together the complaint case and
the case arising out of the police report as if
both the cases were instituted on a police
report.

(3) If the police report does not relate
to any accused in the complaint case or if
the Magistrate does not take cognizance of
any offence on the police report, he shall
proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was
stayed by him, in accordance with the
provisions of this Code."

10. In view of the above, I do not find
any reason to set aside the summoning
order of the revisionist as has been prayed
for and, therefore, I do not find any merit in
this revision.

11. However, it is desirable for this
Court to direct that since the complaint case
instituted against the revisionist relates to
the murder of same person Bharat Lal,
under the provisions of Section 323 Cr.P.C.
it is desirable to commit his case to the
Court of Sessions for trial and be allotted to
the same Judge who is prosecuting Hari
Singh on the basis of police charge sheet in
respect of the same murder to avoid
conflicting findings and it is ordered
accordingly.

12. After the aforesaid decision was
dictated in open Court, it was submitted that
since Hari Singh has already been allowed
bail
some
direction
for
expeditious
consideration of bail of revisionist be
issued.

13. Considering above submission, I
hereby directed both the courts below to
dispose of the bail prayer of the revisionist
in accordance with law after hearing Public
Prosecutor without unreasonable delay as
expeditiously as possible.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA,J.

Criminal Misc. Case No. 1342 of 2011

Union of India and others
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another

 ...Opposite Parties

Code of Criminal Procedure Section-475Application for transfer of criminal case
of
Court
Marshal
before
nearest
commanding
officer-rejected
by
the
Magistrate as no change framed-heldmisconceived-Magistrate
failed
to
appreciate law correctly-order quashed
only statement of offence required

Held: para 7

Thus for sending a person for trial under
the Court-martial, the framing of charge
by the Magistrate is not necessary. The
only statement of the offence committed
by him is to be recorded by the learned
Magistrate. Therefore, I am of the view
that the learned Magistrate has failed to