- (1.)THIS revision has been filed questioning the legality of the order dated 30-8-2007 and in support of the submissions advanced, a supplementary-affidavit has been filed stating therein that the Court below has committed a manifest error by summoning the applicants on the strength of the signed statements of Shiv Mangal, naresh Kumar Singh and Sheelu, which is an erroneous procedure for the purposes of section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. inasmuch as the magistrate has relied on extraneous material which did not form part of the case diary. Sri Manish Tiwari contends that the ingredients of a police report cannot include the signed statement of any person as there is a complete bar to the admissibility of such a statement under Section 162 Cr. P. C.
(2.)THE question, therefore, that arises for consideration is as to whether the Magistrate has erred in proceeding to summon the applicants only on the basis of the said statements which are alleged to have been signed by them and whether in case such a course was to be adopted, then the proceedings ought to have proceeded under Section 190 (1) (a) Cr. P. C.
(3.)SRI Tiwari has urged that the direction issued by the Magistrate to proceed with the case as a State case and the reasons given for rejecting the report of the police did not make out a case for proceeding under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. Sri Tiwari has also invited the attention of the Court to the statements of the other witnesses which are indicated in Parcha No. 3 and has urged that in view of the said statements, there was absolutely no material on the basis whereof the cognizance could have been taken for summoning the applicants. It is also urged that apart from this, there is absolutely no material on the basis whereof any opinion could be formed for summoning the applicants.