UMA SHANKAR SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR
| Petitioner | Uma Shankar Singh |
| Respondent | State of Bihar |
| Citation | (2010) 9 SCC 497 |
| Decided on | 9th September 2010 |
| Bench | Altamas Kabir, A.K Patnaik |
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
- Damodar Singh and Bharat Singh was politician of Bihar received information that fake votes are casted at a specific voting booth. At 11:30 on the same day there was a bomb blast at the location of voting.
- Damodar Singh went in his jeep and Bharat Singh followed him on his bike. When they reached the location they found that a boy was injured so took him to the nearest hospital for treatment.
- At the hospital Uma Shankar Singh who was a candidate of Samata Party arrived and on his instruction his son Jitendar Swami with some other people pulled Bharat Singh into the car and took him somewhere else.
- Now FIR was filed by Damodar Singh on 17th February 2000 the charges were kidnapping (section – 364 of IPC) but after the dead body of Bharat Singh was found there were charges for murder and section 27 of armed act was also added.
- This case has already got a lot of limelight and the informant was losing all hopes due to the statement of the central government. He filed the matter in the High Court.
- The High Court got the matter on 9th April 2001 and looked into the matter. Till then both the agency CID and police had completed their investigating agencies to submit their report to the concerned Chief Justice Magistrate within the limited time of two months from the date order passed.
- After the order both the investigating agencies filed their reports to the chief judicial magistrate. The final report was against the petitioner and some other accused.
- When the final report was filed to the Chief Justice Magistrate he examined the report which took the cognizance against Jitendar Swami and other accused but the Magistrate differed from the report and took the cognizance against Uma Shankar Singh.
- The petitioner filed a request in Patna High Court for cancelling the order passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge but the High Court dismissed it on 12th May 2009.
- Then a special leave petition was filed on 17th July 2009 against the judgement and order given by the High Court.
ISSUE OF THE CASE:-
Can a Magistrate take cognizance in a case where the person’s name is not mentioned as an accused?
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:-
- The petitioner argued that if his name was not mentioned in the charge-sheet then on what basis the magistrate took the cognizance.
- Even if he was appearing to be guilty the trial court should have held it till the stage of Section 319 of CrPC.
- The petitioner’s representative stated that cognizance is taken of the offence not the offender. He also mentioned that a magistrate can take the cognizance of an offence by the modes mentioned in Section 190 of CrPC.
- The petitioner side even referred to the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of Panjab where it was found that the session court has no jurisdiction to bring someone new as the accused even before the prosecution has led any evidence. Only by Section 319 of CrPC the session court could include someone new but not at the initial stage.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:-
- The respondent argued to the petitioner’s statement by referring a case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra where it was stated that even if the investigating agencies have given their final report and a specific person is not an accused according to them still the magistrate can apply his independent knowledge on the facts provided by the police officer or the investigating authority.
- The respondent’s representative also stated that the Magistrate is not always forced to follow the final report of the police officer.
JUDGEMENT:-
After the arguments of both the sides it was held that even if the police report and CID’s report acquits the petitioner from all the allegations mentioned in the FIR but the Magistrate took the cognizance against the petitioner on basis of the facts mentioned in the investigating report of the police report so the Magistrate took the cognizance under Section 190(1) (b) of CrPC. So, all the applications by petitioner to dismiss the case were quashed and charges were framed against the petitioner. Even the special leave petition was dismissed.
CONCLUSION:-
As per the CrPC Section 190 the magistrate will have the cognizance of an offence if the information received as complaint or police report or it comes to the knowledge of the magistrate. The police report or any other investigating authority’s report doesn’t create any binding effect on the magistrate. He can interpret from the facts mentioned in the final report.
written by Amrita Priyadarshini intern under legal vidhiya
