2004 Supreme(Raj) 201

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Vaman Narayan Ghiya - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1166 of 2003
Decided On : March 09, 2004

Headnote:(a) Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, Secs. 3/25(1), 5, 14/25(2), 26; Cr.P.C., Sec. 190 – Jurisdiction of Magistrate to take cognizance of offence under the Act of 1972 – Held – There is no provision in the 1972 Act in regard to investigation, enquiry or trial, the offences under this Act have to be regulated by the procedure contained in Cr.P.C. – Cognizance taken by a Magistrate u/S. 190(1)(a) or (b) Cr.P.C. erroneously in good faith, shall not set aside the proceedings merely on the said ground. (Para 10)(b) Cr.P.C. 1973, Sec. 207 to 209 – Necessity of presence of the accused before Magistrate – Held – Commitment is of ``the case and not of ``the accused – The committing court need not take any evidence before committing case – It has only to see whether the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions – The compliance of formality would only result in further delay in trial. (Paras 14 & 19)(c) Cr.P.C. 1973, Secs. 267, 269(b) – Handing over the accused who is kept in jail by orders of adjournment or remand, to the Police for investigation in some other case – Held – In such a situation, the Police after obtaining the order of the Magistrate for detention in Police custody can arrest the accused. (Paras 22 & 23)(d) Cr.P.C. 1973, Sec. 207 – Supply of 358 coloured photographs and Catelogues of statues – Held – Copy of the Police report and other documents can be supplied to the accused as per provisions of second proviso appended to Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. – If the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court. (Paras 30 to 31)

       Cognizance of the offences was rightly taken by the learned Magistrate Provisions contained in clause (e) of Section 461 CrPC may conveniently be referred at this juncture which provides that if a Magistrate takes cognizance under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 90 CrPC erroneously in good faith, the proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the said ground. Thus from every angle the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merit. (Para 10)

       A plain reading of Section 209 clearly shows that commitment is of `the case and not of `the accused. The Committing Court need not take any evidence before committing the case, it has only to see whether the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. (Para 14)

       Limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. That would be a different transaction and if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case and to enable the police to complete their investigation of the other case, they can require his detention in police custody for the purpose of associating him with the investigation of the other case. In such a situation he must be formally arrested in connection with other case and then obtain the order of the Magistrate for detention in police custody. (Para 22)

       The Magistrate under the second proviso, is given the discretion in respect of voluminous documents referred to in clause (5) to allow their inspection by the accused or his pleader instead of granting their copies. (Para 30)