IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.13948 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 19, 2011 BACHNA RAM ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS JASWANT SINGH .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. IS Pabla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate, for respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, in challenge to order dated 19.9.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the petitioner has been convicted. 2 It transpires that vide order dated 2.7.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, the complaint (protest petition) was dismissed. The said order was challenged in revision petition. Rather than considering the legality of order dated 2.7.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by the trial Magistrate, the revisional court has taken upon itself the powers of the trial Court and recorded conviction of the petitioner and his co-accused. 3 The facts, in brief, are that FIR dated 20.12.2005 Criminal Misc. No.13948 -M of 2010 2 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Kurukshetra City, was registered. After investigation, cancellation report was forwarded, whereupon the respondent-complainant exercised his option of filing a protest petition. The Magistrate, on considering the protest petition, passed order dated 2.7.2008 (Annexure P-2), accepting the cancellation report. The cancellation report was accepted considering that neither the complainant nor his counsel had put in appearance. 4 Order dated 2.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) came to be challenged at the instance of the respondent in revisional jurisdiction. 5 The revisional court was required to consider the legality of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class in accepting the cancellation report. Rather than considering the legality of the order within the scope of Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional court recorded the confession of the petitioner and his co-accused, held them guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 419, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- each, which was directed to be given as compensation to the complainant. In default of payment of fine, it has been directed that the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days each. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revisional court has travelled beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction in assuming the role of the trial court and, therefore, Criminal Misc. No.13948 -M of 2010 3 the impugned order (Annexure P-1) is rendered illegal. 7 Learned counsel for the respondent contends that under the provisions of Section 281, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court was within its power to record the statements of the accused and record conviction and sentence. 8 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. 9 Section 281, Code of Criminal Procedure, is part of Chapter XXIII, which deals with “EVIDENCE IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS”. The petition in the present case before the Additional Sessions Judge was in revisional jurisdiction and not as trial Court. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, there was no occasion for the revisional court to assume the role of the trial court and conclude the trial, resulting in conviction and sentence of the petitioner and his co-accused. 10 In view of the above, this petition is allowed. 11 Order dated 19.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The petitioner and the respondent are relegated back to the Court of Sessions. The revisional court would consider the correctness, legality and propriety of order dated 2.7.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Magistrate within the scope of provisions of Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure, and pass appropriate orders, as required by law. August 19, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?