Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision Application No. 78 of 1978, decided on 18th August, 1979.
‑‑‑‑ S. 307 Cognizance of offence‑First Class Magistrate recording statements of complainant and witnesses under Ss. 200 & 202, Criminal Procedure Code; 1898 in a complaint under S. 307‑‑State ments, held, recorded without jurisdiction hence void and Sessions Judge acted illegally in dismissing complaint on basis of such statement.
M. H. Shah for Applicant.
Manzoor Hussain for Respondents Nos. 3. 6 to 10 and 13 to its.
Date of hearing ; 15th August, 1979.
The only contention advanced by Mr. M. H. Shah is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the complaint under section 307/326/325/147/122/120‑B, P. P. C. could not act on the basis of evidence which had been recorded by 1st Class Magistrate and hence be could not dismiss the complaint as he did on 4th April, 1978. Counsel has con tended that the First Class Magistrate was not authorized to take cogni zance of an offence under section 307, P. P. C., and hence, the statements of witnesses recorded by him did not exist in law. The Magistrate had acted under sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. by recording the statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses directly without any reference of the same or without any order from any Court of Sections. The contention of the learned counsel seems to be correct as section 307. P. P: C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as shown in Schedule 11 of Cr. P. C. This position of the learned counsel, is there fore, accepted. The counsel for the State as well as for the respondent concede that this is the correct position in law. I therefore, set aside the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 4th April, 1978 and further order that this complaint be dealt with by some other Additional Sessions Judge than the learned Judge who had decided the same on 4th April, 1978 and it may be proceeded with in accordance with law. This order will dispose of both applications Nos. 78/1978 and 82 of 1978, as both these complaints are directed against the same order and have been filed by the complainant as well as witness of the complaint,
Order set aside.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer