Yoonus Khan vs State Of Raj And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6221 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6379/2017
Yoonus Khan S/o Hazi Taju Khan, R/o Village Ganedi, Police
Station Nechhwa Tehsil Laxmangarh Distt. Sikar At Present
Residing At 62, Civil Lines, Gaurav Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
2.      Peoples Union For Civil Liberties Through Kailash Meena
        S/o Shri Narsa Ram Meena, R/o Village Bharala, Police
        Station Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V. R. Bajwa, Senior Counsel with Mr. Amar Kumar, Adv., Mr. Manish Parmar, Adv.

For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Atul Sharma, PP
                               Mr. D. K. Purohit, Adv. on behalf of
                               Mr. Prem Kishan Sharma, Adv.



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                    Order

ORDER RESERVED ON                        ::                       13.09.2022


ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                       ::                          16.09.2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated

20.09.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar

whereby the learned revisional court dismissed the revision

petition upholding the taking cognizance and summoning the

petitioner for offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section

4 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960 vide order

dated 17.10.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sikar.

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6379/2017]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court

vide order dated 17.10.2008 wrongly taken the cognizance

against the petitioner under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the

Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had filed a revision

petition but the said revision petition was dismissed by the

revisional court vide order dated 20.09.2017. Learned counsel for

the petitioner also submits that revisional court partly set aside

the cognizance order against the Government Officials. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that complainant had not

submitted the original VCD before the trial court. Revisional court

in its order clearly stated that edited VCD was submitted before

the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

enquiry was sent by the trial court under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In

the enquiry, no offence was found against the petitioner because

no Mrityu Bhoj was organized by the petitioner. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submits that there was no evidence before

the trial court for organization of Mrityu Bhoj. Learned counsel for

the petitioner also submits that cognizance taken by the trial court

was time barred because as per complaint, incident of 26.05.2005

but said cognizance was taken by the trial court on 17.10.2008.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per Section

10 of Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960, cognizance

cannot be taken beyond one year of the incident. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submits that Section 468 Cr.P.C. is not

applicable on said Act because Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu

Bhoj Act is special Act and general rules are not applicable on it.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that compliance of

Section 65-B of Evidence Act was not done in this matter. So,

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6379/2017]

cognizance taken against the petitioner by the trial court and

confirmed by the revisional court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

following judgments: (1) Krishna Pillai Vs. T.A. Rajendran &

Anr. reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 121; (2) P.P. Unnikrishan

& Anr. Vs. Puttiyottil Alikutty & Anr. reported in 2000 (2)

Supreme (Cr.) 148; (3) Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Raj.

reported in 2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 627; (4) Bharat Damodar

Kale & anr. vs. State of A.P. JT reported in 2003 (Suppl.2)

SC 569 and (5) Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio

Vascular Diseases by Its Director DR K.M. Cherain and ors.

reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner had

organized the Mrityu Bhoj and respondent had submitted the

ample evidence regarding Mrityu Bhoj. Learned counsel for

respondent also submitted that respondent had submitted the

VCD before the trial court and trial court had seen the VCD at the

time of arguments. So, order of the trial court as well as revisional

court do not suffer from illegality or infirmity. So, petition be

dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that revision filed by the petitioner

and other persons were decided by the revisional court vide order

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6379/2017]

dated 20.09.2017 in which revisional court set aside the order of

cognizance except the petitioner. Revisional court in its order

stated that edited VCD was taken into consideration by the trial

court. In the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. no evidence came

on record regarding organization of Mrityu Bhoj. Complainant had

not submitted the concrete evidence regarding organization of

Mrityu Bhoj. It is also admitted position that cognizance in the

violation of Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Rajasthan

Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960 can be taken by the

Magistrate within one year of the alleged incident but in the

present case, cognizance taken by the concerned Magistrate after

a lapse of three years. Provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C. is not

applicable because Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960

is special act. Section 10 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu

Bhoj Act, 1960 clearly barred for taking of cognizance after a

lapse of one year. So, in my considered opinion, order of the trial

court as well as revisional court are not legally sustainable and

deserve to be set aside. So, present petition filed by the petitioner

deserves to be allowed.

Therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The

order of the trial court dated 17.10.2008 and revisional court

dated 20.09.2017 are set aside.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin/127

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)