Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Application allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 03, 1984

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758908

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758908
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: S.S. Byas, J.
Decided On: Jan 03, 1984
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 66/83
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319--Recording of evidence is a condition precedent--Evidence not recorded by Magistrate--Held, he has no power to pass order under Section 319.;The recording of evidence is a condition precedent to proceed under Section 33 9, Cr. PC. The evidence of a single witness may be sufficie...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahendra Kumar

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1984WLN(UC)70

Excerpt

.....a person under section 319(1), cr. pc. but the court can not proceed under section 319(1), cr. pc unevidence less and until some has been recorded including the involvement of the person, who is to be added and summoned for trial.; no evidence was at all recorded. the chief judicial magistrate had, therefore, no power under section 319, cr. pc and to pass the impugned order against petitioner mahendrakumar.;application allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - law reporter 550. ft is thus now a well settled position in law that under section 319(1) cr......bhanwarlal was discharged on 16-6-1977. the order of the discharge could not be passed unless the cognizance was taken and the parties were heard. the order of the discharge shows that the magistrate had taken cognizance and applied his mind to the facts of the case. thereafter, the case lingered on for framing the charge against the co-accused basantkumar. no order for framing the charge could bs passed against him for one and other reason.4. the additional public prosecutor had submitted an application under section 319, cr. pc. only in the course of trial of the offences. the power under section 319, cr. pc to proceed against any other person not being the accused can be exercised only when evidence has been recorded. if no evidence has been recorded, the court has no power to proceed under section 319, cr. pc against the person, who is already not an accused. the scope and ambit of section 319, cr. pc and the powers of a court thereunder have been elaborately and exhautitvely dealt with by their lordships of the supreme court and this court. the pronouncements of the supreme court were referred to by this court in sheoram singh etc. v. state of rajasthan 1982 raj. law reporter 550. ft is thus now a well settled position in law that under section 319(1) cr. pc, a court (which includes all courts whether of a magistrate or a sessions judge)is competent and has power to add any person and to summon him to stand trial, if the evidence recorded during enquiry or or trial discloses his involvement in the commission of crime. the recording of evidence is a condition precedent to proceed under section 319. cr. pc. the evidence of a single witness may be sufficient to enable the court to issue process against a person under section 312(1), cr. pc. but the court can not proceed under section 319(1), cr. pc unless and until some evidence has been recorded including the involvement of the person, who is to be added and summoned for trial.5. in the instant case, no.....

Full Judgment

S.S. Byas, J.

1. This application has been filed by Mahendra Kumar under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401, Cr. PC for quashing the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorsgarh dated October 7, 1982 passed under Section 319 Cr. PC summoning the petitioner to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471/120, IPC. The police submitted a challan against Bhanwarlal and Basantkumar for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471, IPC.

2. Briefly stated the case set up by the prosecution is that they prepared a forged registration certificate of a Primer Safari Saloon purporting to have been issued by the District Transport Officer, Chittorgarh The vehicle was allotted Regisiration No. R.J.H. 1224 under the forged certificate of registration. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the prosecution and the accused-persons, passed an order on June 16, 1977 by which accused Bhanwarlal was discharged. The case thereafter lingered on against accused Basantkumar. On June 15, 1982, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted an application in the court-below to add and implead Mahendra Kumar as an accused because it was he, who had sold the vehicle to the fictitious person and managed to procure false registration certificate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his smpugned order dated October 7, 1982 allowed the aforesaid application and summoned the petitioner Mahendra Kumar to face trial for offence as mentioned at the very out set.

3. The point involved is a very short one, viz. whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate could pass such an order under Section 319, Cr. PC without taking evidence. Obviously, he had taken cogniza ice of the offence on April 18, 1977. The co-accused Bhanwarlal was discharged on 16-6-1977. The order of the discharge could not be passed unless the cognizance was taken and the parties were heard. The order of the discharge shows that the Magistrate had taken cognizance and applied his mind to the facts of the case. Thereafter, the case lingered on for framing the charge against the co-accused Basantkumar. No order for framing the charge could bs passed against him for one and other reason.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted an application under Section 319, Cr. PC. only in the course of trial of the offences. The power under Section 319, Cr. PC to proceed against any other person not being the accused can be exercised only when evidence has been recorded. If no evidence has been recorded, the court has no power to proceed under Section 319, Cr. PC against the person, who is already not an accused. The scope and ambit of Section 319, Cr. PC and the powers of a court thereunder have been elaborately and exhautitvely dealt with by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and this Court. The pronouncements of the Supreme Court were referred to by this Court in Sheoram Singh etc. v. State of Rajasthan 1982 Raj. Law Reporter 550. ft is thus now a well settled position in law that under Section 319(1) Cr. PC, a court (which includes all courts whether of a Magistrate or a Sessions Judge)is competent and has power to add any person and to summon him to stand trial, if the evidence recorded during enquiry or or trial discloses his involvement in the commission of crime. The recording of evidence is a condition precedent to proceed under Section 319. Cr. PC. The evidence of a single witness may be sufficient to enable the court to issue process against a person under Section 312(1), Cr. PC. But the court can not proceed under Section 319(1), Cr. PC unless and until some evidence has been recorded including the involvement of the person, who is to be added and summoned for trial.

5. In the instant case, no evidence was at all recorded. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had, therefore, no power under Section 319, Cr. PC and to pass the impugned order against the petitioner Mahendrakumar. The petition must, therefore, succeed.

6. In the result, the application of Mahendrakumar is allowed and impugned order dated October 7, 1982 is quashed. The case will go back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh. After recording evidence if he feels, he should take cognizance against petitioner Mahendrakumar and to summon him for trial he will pass an appropriate order to that effect. This judgment will not stand in his way to prevent him from exercising his discretion under Section 319(1), Cr. PC.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1984 Same Parties Mahendra Kumar vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.S. Byas, J.

Criminal