In a criminal revision, the Single Judge held that the lower court validly took cognizance after rejecting a protest petition against the Final Report. Finding the order free from illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, the revision was dismissed.
The revision was dismissed; the interim order, if any, stands vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1659 of 1997
Revisionist :- Bharat Bhushan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- P.N.Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Case called out in revised list, none for the revisionists.
As per Office Report, notice issued to revisionists has been served. As this revision is pending since the year 1997 and no one is appearing on behalf of revisionist to argue the revision, thus, the revision is being decided finally.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present revision has been preferred against the order dated 12.09.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Case No. 02 of 1994 (Atamaram Tripathi vs. Munna Lal & Ors) Crime No. 447 of 1993, P.S. Sahzadnagar, District Rampur, whereby learned Court below has taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. and has summoned revisionists for trial under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.
Perusal of record shows that on the basis of secret information, a raid was conducted at the premises of revisionists by S.D.M Milak, Rampur and illicit recovery of 358 bags of D.A.P.N.P. fertilizer and 2500 empty bags was made and thus a case was registered against all the three revisionists, namely, Munna Lal, Mahendra and Babloo but after investigation police have preferred final report concluding that no case is made out against the revisionists. Complainant has filed a protest petition against final report and after hearing on protest petition, final
report was rejected by the learned Court below and cognizance was taken under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C. and revisionists were summoned vide order dated 12.09.1997, which is being impugned in the present revision.
Law on the point of protest petition against final report and summoning order is well settled. Section 190 of Cr.P.C. provides three contingency. If Magistrate on the basis of a complaint of facts constituting offence decides to take cognizance for issuing summon the order would fall within the ambit of Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. If Magistrate decides to take cognizance on the basis of police report submitted under section 173 Cr.P.C. the order of taking cognizance would fall under Section 190(1)(b). If Magistrate decides to take cognizance upon information received from any person other than the police officer, or upon his own knowledge in regard to an offence committed the Magistrate shall act in terms of Section 190(1)(c).
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Minu Kumari & Ors Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2006 (4) SCC 359 has observed that when final report has submitted before the Magistrate he has four options:
(i) After giving opportunity of being heard to the complainant and after applying mind to the material available in the case diary, accept final report and drop the proceeding.
(ii) After hearing the complainant and going through the record of the police report if satisfied that necessary ingredients of offence are made out on the basis of material collected during investigation the court may summon the accused straight way under Section 190(i)(b) Cr.P.C.
(iii) He may treat the protest petition of the complainant as complaint and proceed to inquire in the light of Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. and if found that there are sufficient material to proceed
against the accused persons may summon the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and if not, may dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
(iv) After considering the police report and material placed along with protest petition the Magistrate is of the view that further investigation is required in the matter, he may pass an order for further investigation in view of Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C.
Thus, it is apparent that if Magistrate finds that there is sufficient material, collected during investigation, which makes out a prima facie case, the Magistrate may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and summon the accused. In the instant case perusal of record shows that learned Court below has considered the entire relevant material and has recorded a finding that the complainant and other witnesses have supported the entire prosecution version in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and that on the basis of material collected during investigation a case under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act is made out against the revisionists. Learned Court below has assigned detailed reasons and there is nothing to indicate that the findings or conclusion of the Court below are perverse or suffer from any illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction.
Considering the entire facts and above discussed position of law, it is apparent that there is no such illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference by this Court in revision. The present revision lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 2.1.2020 A. Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order summoned the revisionists for trial under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. from the Final Report is legal and sustainable.
Whether the learned Special Judge correctly took cognizance after rejecting the protest petition and finding sufficient material to make out a case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Minu Kumari & Ors Vs. State of BiharReferred¶12
2006 (4) SCC 359 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Bharat Bhushan
State of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
