Ram Prakash and Others vs Banwari Lai and Another

V.P. Mathur, J.—This revision was taken up after the revision of the list and the learned Counsel for the revisionist is not present. Mr. Chaturvedi appears on behalf of the complainant.

The only ground taken in support of this revision is that all the witnesses cited by the complainant have not been examined u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence the order of summoning is inadequate and defective. In the case of Mahendra Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. 1985 AWC 270 : 1986 ALJ 719 and before that in the matter of Jinendra Pratap Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, it has already been held by this Court that during the course of trial for scheduled offences by a Special Judge under the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas'' Act, the provisions of Sections 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure will not be applicable. The proviso to Section 7 of the Dacoity Affected Areas'' Act empowers the Special Judge to perfrom functions only u/s 207 Code of Criminal Procedure at which stage the Trial has to begin in accordance with the procedure laid down u/s 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Therefore, if in any case the statement of the complainant has not been recorded u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure or of all his witnesses u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure and the matter relates to special trial under the provisions of the Dacoity Affected Areas Act, this will not be deemed to be any defect in the trial. The revision has thus no force and is hereby dismissed. The stay order earlier passed shall stand vacated.