Skip to content


Lichman Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 186 of 1984
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)613
AppellantLichman Singh and ors.
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredSheoram Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - section 319--no statement recorded either in enquiry or trial--magistrate taking cognizance--held, order be set aside;no statement has been recorded either during the enquiry or trial and as such the learned magistrate has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance.;the order dated 14-2-1984 passed by the learned sessions judge, sikar and the order dated 4-5-83 passed by learned addl. munsif and judicial magistrate, sikar set aside.;revision allowed. - .....statements recorded before court of enquiry or trial. it does not include statements recorded by police or recorded at instance of police. this court also held that cognizance can be taken on a single statement.5. in the instant case, it was submitted that no statement has been recorded either during the inquiry or trial and as such the learned magistrate has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance.6. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 14-2-84 passed by the learned sessions judge sikar and the order dated 4-5-83 passed by learned addl. munsif and judicial magistrate, sikar set aside. the case may be sent back to the trial court for proceeding according to law.7. the trial court will have a right to take the cognizance afresh after recording the evidence of all.....
Judgment:

Dinker Lal Mehta, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance Under Section 319 Cr.PC only after recording the evidence in the court. It is not necessary to record the evidence even when cognizance can be taken after recording the evidence of one of the witnesses.

3. He has invited may attention to the case of Sheoram Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1982 Cr.LR (Raj.) 637.

4. This Court has interpreted the meaning of the word 'evidence'. This Court held that the 'evidence' means statements recorded before court of enquiry or trial. It does not include statements recorded by police or recorded at instance of police. This court also held that cognizance can be taken on a single statement.

5. In the instant case, it was submitted that no statement has been recorded either during the inquiry or trial and as such the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 14-2-84 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sikar and the order dated 4-5-83 passed by learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar set aside. The case may be sent back to the trial court for proceeding according to law.

7. The trial court will have a right to take the cognizance afresh after recording the evidence of all or any of the witnesses.

8. The record of this case may also be sent back immediately.

9. The revision petition is disposed off accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //