Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 2/25/2011 12:00:00 AM
  Court Allahabad High Court
  Parties Ram Vilash Chauhan & Others Vs. State Of U.P.& Others
  Appeal Criminal Appeal - CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1409 of 2001
  Act Criminal Procedure Code - 190
  Judgement
  Hon`ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J. 1. Heard Mr. C.K. Parekh for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the respondents and perused the record. 2. The respondent No.3 Ram Bali Yadav, Sub-Inspector, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of all the respondents and is represented through the learned A.G.A. Therefore, it is not necessary to hear respondent No.3 personally. 3. By this revision, the revisionists have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 10.05.2001 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision NO. 40 of 2001, Ram Bali Yadav Vs. State, whereby the learned Sessions Judge quashed the order dated 27.03.2009 passed by Mr. Manoj Kumar Shukla, Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Chandauli on the application dated 26.03.2001 moved on behalf of the revisionist No.3. 4. Mr. C.K. Parekh submitted that rervisionist No.3 Smt. Shakuntala Devi moved an application on 26.03.2001 in Case Crime No. 33/2001 of P.S. Chakia, District Chandauli with the allegations that the revisionist No.1 Ram Vilash Chauhan and one Madhav had been taken into custody from their houses by the police of police station Chakia on 25.03.2001 and had been kept in the lock up of the police station. The Magistrate was requested to call for a report from the concerned police station. In pursuance of the order of the Magistrate, the police of police station Chakia submitted its report dated 27.03.2001 to the effect that the aforesaid Ram Vilash Chauhan and Girdhar Chauhan (revisionist Nos. 1 and 2) were accused in the aforesaid crime no.33/2001 and requested the Court to take them into custody. The revisionist No.3 moved another application dated 27.03.2001 informing the Magistrate that her husband (Ram Vilash Chauhan) and father-in-law (Madhav) had been taken into custody on 25.03.2001 at about 12 noon form their houses and had been detained illegally in the lock up of the police station. Therefore, she requested that an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed to verify the allegations made in the application. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate appointed one Mr. Bachhan Singh, Senior Advocate, and required him to visit to the police station and submit report regarding the allegations made in the application. Mr. Bachhan Singh visited the police station Chakia and after verifying the facts submitted his report dated 27.03.2001 (Annexure No.6). According to the report of Mr. Bachhan Singh, on 27.03.2001 at about 1:10 PM the aforesaid Ram Vilash Chauhan and Girdhar Chauhan were found in the police lock up of the aforesaid police station. 5. Keeping in view the report submitted by Mr. Bachhan Singh, Advocate, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the matter in exercise of his power under section190(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and issued process to the respondent No.3 in regard to the offences under sections 219 and 342 I.P.C. as the learned Magistrate was of the view that due to illegal detention of the aforesaid two persons in the police lock up and registration of a false case against them, the offences under sections 219 and 342 I.P.C were made out against the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 preferred the aforesaid Criminal revision in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, who allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that there was no provision for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for verifying the facts stated in the application dated 26.03.2001. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was not proper. 6. Mr. C.K.Parekh further submitted that when the Magistrate received the information that the revisionist No.1 and his father had been illegally arrested by the police from their houses on 25.03.2001 and had been illegally detained in the police lock up, it was open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the matter and to appoint an advocate or any other person for verifying the facts stated in the application. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in allowing the revision on that technical ground. Mr. C.K. Parekh further submitted that in fact the Case Crime No. 33/2001 had been cooked up by the police against the revisionist No. 1 and his father and other accused by way of creating a defence against the illegal detention of the revisionist No.1 and his father. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was perfectly correct and the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in quashing the same. Mr. C.K. Parekh lastly submitted that a Single Judge of this Court (Honble R.K. Das, J) took note of the illegal detention of the revisionist No.1 and his father and passed the order dated 24.04.2001 in petition No. 1962 of 2001 (Annexure No.15) and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli to decide the bail prayer as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the allegations made by the revisionist No.3 in her application dated 26.03.2001 were not in anyway baseless. 7. Learned A.G.A., instead of supporting the reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge submitted that the summoning order was passed by the learned Magistrate without collecting adequate materials, therefore, the matter has to go back to the learned Magistrate for collecting relevant materials in support of the allegations. 8. Section 190 of the Code provides as to how cognizance of the offences is to taken by the Magistrates. Relevant of portion of Section190 of Code may be reproduced as follows:- "190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, specially empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2), may take cognizance of any offence- (a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) Upon a police report of such facts; (c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. 2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try." 9. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly reveals that the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence by adopting any of the aforesaid three modes. He has power to take cognizance of any offence on a complaint containing facts constituting the offence. He has power to take cognizance on a police report of such facts. Apart from complaint and police report, the Magistrate has further power to take cognizance of an offence under section 190(1)(c) of the Code upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. Therefore, the Magistrate has wide power under section 190(1)(c) of the Code to take cognizance of any offence on any information may be written or oral or even on his own knowledge regarding commission of the offence. In this view of the matter, the application dated 26.03.2001 and 27.03.2001 moved by the revisionist No. 3 were nothing except an information given to the Magistrate regarding commission of the offences under sections 219 and 342 I.P.C by the respondent No. 3. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in taking cognizance of the offences under section 219 and 342 I.P.C. on such information under section 190(1)(c) of the Code and to that extent the order of the learned Magistrate was not only perfectly correct but was also within the ambit of section 190(1)(c) of the Code. 10. So far as passing of the summoning order is concerned, the provisions of section 204 of the Code ought to have been kept in mind. Therefore, before passing a summoning order, the Magistrate has to see whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the matter.. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the matter, it is open to him to pass the summoning order under section 204 of the Code. In order to decide the question whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed with the matter, the Magistrate has to consider the materials (evidence) placed in support of the information received by him. Therefore, before passing the summoning order, it was obligatory on the learned Magistrate to hold an inquiry for finding out truth in the allegations made by the revisionist No.3 and the relevant materials in support of such allegations. Therefore, passing of the summoning order without obtaining relevant materials in support of the information, was not proper. So far as the relevancy of the report of the Advocate Commissioner is concerned it cannot be contended that it had no relevancy. The Advocate Commissioner visited the concerned police station on 27.03.2001 and found that revisionist Nos.1 and 2 and father of the revisionist No.1 were in the police lock up and reported that fact to the Magistrate. In this way, the aforesaid Advocate Commissioner was an important witness of the alleged detention of the aforesaid persons in the police lock up. As such the view of the learned Sessions Judge that the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner was irrelevant, does not appear to be correct. What was required from the learned Magistrate before acting upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner, was to record the statement of the Advocate Commissioner and to find out prima facie truth in such report. Without doing so, the learned Magistrate was not justified in placing reliance on the report of the Advocate Commissioner and passing the summoning order. The report of the Advocate Commissioner being a material piece of evidence of the case could not be discarded on the ground that there was no provision for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. It appears that the learned Magistrate while deputing an Advocate Commissioner for verifying truth of the allegations, had merely acted to collect relevant evidence in support of the allegations made by the revisionist No.3. in her applications. As such the decision of the learned Magistrate in appointing the aforesaid Advocate as Commissioner was perfectly correct, therefore, the observations of the learned Sessions Judge are not tenable in law. 11. For the reasons discussed above, the revision is allowed and revisional courts order dated 10.05.2001 is quashed. The summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is also quashed. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to hold an inquiry and collect relevant materials in support of the applications dated 26.03.2001 and 27.03.2001 moved by the revisionist No.3 and pass appropriate order afresh in accordance with law. Date :- 25.2.2011