The central legal point established in the judgment is that the committal order was valid as the accused had been supplied with the required document copies before the order was passed.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A.

( 2 ) THE present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the committal order dated 8. 11. 2005 (Annexure-2) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda, in Criminal Case No. 20 of 2005 and the order dated 14. 2. 2006 (Annexure-5) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in crl. Revision No. 186 of 2005.

( 3 ) THE ground taken in the present writ petition is that the case was fixed on 8. 11. 2005 for supply of copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 8. 11. 2005 the accused Shiv singh alias Ganna Singh was present but on behalf of petitioner an exemption application was moved. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda passed two orders on 8. 11. 2005, first on the order sheet and second was committal order which are Annexures-1 and 2 to this writ petition. The chief Judicial Magistrate passed routine order on 8. 11. 2005 in which supply of copies too was mentioned whereas no copy of document as required under Section 207 Cr. P. C were given to Sri shiv Singh alias Ganna Singh or the counsel for the present petitioner Raj Kumar Singh Gaur. The petitioner moved an application on 11. 11. 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate complaining this but it was rejected by order dated 11. 11. 2005 and the case was committed. The petitioner then filed a revision which was also dismissed by order dated 14. 2. 2006. It was submitted that it was the duty of the committing Magistrate to have satisfied whether the copies of documents have been furnished to accused or not before passing the committal order. The finding of revisional court is also bad in law.

( 4 ) I have examined whole of the records of the case and find that there are two orders, first is/the order sheet, which is dated 8. 11. 2005, in which it has been written that the copies have been furnished. The learned Counsel for the petitioner termed it as routine order. This is the order which is recorded on the order sheet whereas the committal order is passed separately. The committal order (Annexure-2) is not in casual manner but it categorically states that the copies as required under Section 207 Cr. P. C. has been furnished to the accused, hence the case was committed. The revisional court dismissed the revision holding the order of the Magistrate to be proper. The copy of the order sheet has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit since 10. 1. 2005. It shows that the case was being listed on various dates for supplying the copy. On 8. 11. 2005, one accused was present and the other has sought exemption through his counsel. It was specifically mentioned that the copies have been furnished. If the counsel was present he should have raised an objection then and there that copies were not furnished and it may be furnished. But no such objection was raised. The application was moved on 8. 11. 2005 before the magistrate but it was dismissed holding that the case has been committed and application is not maintainable. It was argued before this Court that the order sheet nowhere shows any receiving at the margin of the order sheet. It is not necessary that accused should make an endorsement and receiving must be there.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in the case of Charan Jeet singh alias Tinkoo Sardar v. State of U. P. 2002 All JIC. 49 and submitted that this Court has held that it is the duty of the committing Magistrate to have ascertained that the provision of section 207 Cr. P. C. has been complied with only then committal order should have been passed. On the fact of the present case there was a complaint by the accused that the copy of few document had not been applied. Those documents were nothing but the statement of few witnesses. In that case off the accused could have claimed the copy only when those witnesses have to be examined. Thus, the said judgment is not applicable on the fact of the present case. The learned