Honble GUPTA, J.–This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 4.9.89 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu whereby the affirmed the order dt. 15.6.89 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

(2). The short facts of the case are these: Ayub, respondent no.2 lodged a first information report on 30.9.86 against seven persons in respect of an occurrence which took place in the previous night on which a case under Section 307 IPC was registered. As injured Shafi died during investigation, section 302 IPC was also added. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan on 6.12.86 against six persons and filed a Final Report against petitioner Ibrahim Khan. Vide order dt. 29.1.87 the six accused challaned by the police were committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter on 20.4.87 first informant Ayub filed a private complaint before the Magistrate against seven persons (six already challaned by the police and Ibrahim, petitioner). The Magistrate recorded statements of the com- plainant and his witnesses. The Magistrate vide order dt. 15.6.89 ordered the summoning of the petitioner by a warrant of arrest. This order was challenged by petitioner Ibrahim by filing revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Churu who vide order dt. 4.9.89 dismissed the revision petition. Now this misc. petition.

(3). Mr. Shishodiya learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that under Sec.190 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence/s and once the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence/s under any of the cls. (a), (b) or (c) he cannot take cognizance again in respect of same offence/s. He pointed out that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offences in exercise of power under Sec.190(1)(b) when the police submitted challan against six persons named in the F.I.R. and contended that after committing the case to the Court of Sessions the Magistrate had no power to take cognizance against the petitioner on the basis of the private complaint as that amounted to taking of the cognizance twice which is not permissible under Sec. 190 Cr.P.C. His contention was that if the Sessions Judge is satisfied after evidence is recorded, he may summon the petitio- ner as additional accused in exercise of power under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. but the Magis- trate could not do so u/S. 190 Cr.P.C. after he had committed the case to the Court of Sessions. His further submission was that the Magistrate had examined only 11 witnesses before passing the order of summoning the petitioner whereas he ought to have examined all the witnesses as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions.

(4). The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the Magistrate had a right to take cognizance against the petitioner in exercise of the power under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. on the basis of the private complaint, and therefore, the order does not call for interference.

(5). There is no merit in the second contention of Mr. Shishodiya that it was incumbent for the Magistrate to have examined all the witnesses named in the list as it was the case exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. In the case of Mahendra Singh vs. Kesar Singh (1), this Court has held that it is not necessary for a Magistrate to examine all the witnesses mentioned in the list and the expression ``produce all his witnesses and examine them in proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. mean only such witnesses which the complainant thinks necessary to produce. In the instant case, the complainant desired to examine 11 witnesses only and it cannot be said that there was non- compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

(6). There is however merit in the first contention of Mr. Shishodiya that cognizance could not be taken by the Magistrate twice in respect of the same offe- nce. Section 190 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder:-

``190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.- (1) Sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document