Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 37 of 2010 Petitioner :- Raju @ Tui Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- A.C. Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
The instant revision is filed against impugned notice dated
01.12.2009 passed by Addl. City Magistrate (Second), Bareilly, in
Case No. 40 of 2009 State Vs. Raju @ Tui under Section 110(g)
Cr.P.C. P.S. Subhash Nagar, district Bareilly, whereby notice
under Section 111 Cr.P.C. , has been issued against revisionist.
Learned counsel for revisionist submits that notice under Section
111 Cr.P.C. has been issued without considering mandatory
provision and without giving a substance of general nature of
material allegation, only on a printed proforma. Notice has been
issued without application of mind. The counsel for revisionist has
relied upon the judgment reported in 1993 (30) ACC page 146
Siya Nand Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. in which High Court had
quashed the proceedings on account of the reason that initiation of
proceedings under Sections 111, 151, 107, 116, 114 Cr.P.C. on the
basis of that notice was issued on a printed proforma and there was
complete absence of application of mind by the Magistrate
concerned.
Apart from the aforesaid facts, there are series of decisions in
which it has been held by the High Court that provisions contained
under Section 111 of the Code are mandatory and non-compliance
thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. Learned Magistrate is not
expected to depart from procedure to any substantial extent
because liberty of the persons is involved and liberty can only be
curtailed according to legal procedure and not according to the
whims of learned Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate concerned
while issuing impugned notice against revisionist has not followed
mandatory provisions and substance of general nature has also
been entered upon and has been issued on a printed format, hence
there was non-application of mind.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned notice dated
01.12.2009 under Section 111 Cr.P.C. issued by Addl. City
Magistrate (Second), Bareilly, in Case No. 40 of 2009 State Vs.
Raju @ Tui under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. P.S. Subhash Nagar,
district Bareilly, is hereby quashed. The instant revision is
allowed.
However, it will be open to learned Magistrate to issue a fresh
notice if found necessary in view of the facts and circumstances of
the case in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 7.1.2010
S.A.A.Rizvi