Allahabad High Court
Munnar Ram vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 April, 2013
Bench: Jayashree Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 25
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5654 of 2009
Petitioner :- Munnar Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- R.V. Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.
Case called out in the revised list.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the order of the learned lower court taking cognizance on a police report filed under sections 403, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C.
The order dated 2.8.2008 shows that the case was called and the accused is not present and summons have not received back after service. It was ordered that 3.18.2008 is fixed regarding the absence of the accused and order dated 13.10.2008 shows that no one is present. The accused be called by way of bailable warrant amounting to Rs. 5000/-.
In this connection it is worthwhile to note that the accused in a cognizance case can be summoned by the learned Magistrate both by summons as well as by bailable warrant. In the present case, learned Magistrate has first issued the summon but subsequently, he issued a bailable warrant against the accused as summons did not return after service and the accused did not appear.
In issuing bailable warrant of Rs. 5000/-, there is no illegality of the jurisdiction committed by the learned Magistrate because in the case of warrant trial, the accused can be summoned by way of warrant. In this regard, it is expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Section 204 Cr.P.C. which lays down as follows :-
"204.Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."
So, the learned Magistrate has power in a warrant trial case to summon the accused either by way of summon or by way of warrant. As such, there is no illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned Magistrate in directing of bailable warrant. The order passed by the learned lower court is well within its jurisdiction and no illegality or irregularity appears to have been committed by the learned lower court which may require any intervention by this court. The revision, therefore, appears to have no force in itself and is liable to be dismissed as such.
The revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.4.2013
Monika
