Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHANWAR SINGH versus C.B.I.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BHANWAR SINGH v C.B.I. - CRLR Case No. 02162 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 3971 (16 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

ORDER

S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 2162/2007 (DR.J.)

(Bhanwar Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Jodhpur)

Date of Order : 16.08.2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR

Mr. K.S.Gill, for the petitioner.

Mr. Panney Singh for the respondent CBI.

BY THE COURT:-

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned dated 19.12.2005 passed by Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Case

No.85/06.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 19.12.2005, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the order was passed by the linked judge and he while accepting the challan papers observed that prima-facie offences are made out against the petitioner, as such, the linked judge took the cognizance of the offences which is without jurisdiction and therefore, seeks quashing of the order impugned.

Mr. Panney Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that the contention of the petitioner is totally incorrect because in the order sheet dated 19.12.2005 the linked judge only accepted the challan papers and decided the application filed by the accused persons for bail. Thereafter, the linked judge passed an order for listing the case on 06.1.2006. On that date, the Presiding Officer was present and after perusing the challan papers, appropriate order was passed for registering the case.

Meaning thereby the cognizance was taken by the Presiding

Officer himself on 6.1.2006 when he has passed an order for registering the case.

I have perused the order impugned passed by the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Cases, Jodhpur as well as the order dated 6.1.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer.

After perusing both the orders, I do not find any reason to interfere in this case because it is obvious from both the orders that no order of taking cognizance on 19.12.2005 was passed by the linked judge. In fact on 6.1.2006 the Presiding

Officer himself passed an order for registering the case after taking into consideration the evidence on record. It is also required to be said that at the time of passing order of taking cognizance, the only requirement is to peruse the challan papers and to form an opinion whether prima-facie case is made out upon which case can be registered. Therefore, it is evident from order dated 6.1.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer that on that date after scanning the challan papers, he has passed an order for registering the case. In fact on 6.1.2006, the cognizance was taken by the Presiding Officer.

In this view of the matter, the petition has no force and it is therefore, dismissed.

(H.R.PANWAR),J. rp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.