JUDGMENT M.P. Varma, J. The petitioner under this application filed under section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to direct the court of the learned Sessions Judge to hold trial - against the members of the opposite party after framing charge under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Penal Code') with other charges of committing riot and assault. 2. In order to appreciate the points involved it appears necessary to put, in brief, the facts relating to the case. The petitioner Mohmmad Kuhhi lodged an information at police station Naugachia alleging, inter alia, that when he had gone to his Bahiyar he found herds of buffaloes grazing in the field and he started driving them away. No sooner he did it, the members of the opposite party forming an unlawlaful assembly and being variously armed with lethal weapons came over and fall upon the petitioner and his men who were there in the Bahiyar. The case is that both the petitioner and his other man were assaulted with the but of the gun and also with lathis which the accused persons were carrying. The further case of the petitioner is that the members of the mob then proceeded towards the village. In the process of their retreat, they had resorted to indiscriminate firing and it is said that a boy named Abdul Gaffar who was coming from the opposite side was suddenly shot at and killed at the spot. 3. On the statements aforesaid made by the petitioner, the police registered a case and after investigation submitted charge sheet for putting the members of the opposite party on trial for offences punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code and also under sections 148, 147, 323 and 324 of the Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of session asking the members of the opposite party to take their trial before the Sessions Judge on the charges aforesaid. The Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of session asking the members of the opposite party to take their trial before the Sessions Judge on the charges aforesaid. The Third Additional Sessions Judge at Bhagalpur before' whom the case was transferred for disposal, after hearing the parties, i.e, the prosecution and the accused persons, and upon consideration or the materials on the record, by his order dated 16.3.1982 held that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons on a charge under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code and further observed that they should be charged for offence punishable under section 143 and section 325 read with section 325 read with section 149 of the Penal Code, and sent the case back to tae court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for disposal according to law. 4. The order impugned bas been challenged on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has travelled beyond his jurisdiction while considering the case in passing the order under section 227 of the Code. It has been contended that the evidence collected by the police in the case diary, prima facie shows that the members of the mob while retreating had resorted to indiscriminate firing. It is also in evidence that the members were carrying lethal weapons, some of them holding guns, and that in course of their retreat, probably in their bid to escape or otherwise, opened fire which hit one named Abdul Gaffar resulting in his death. Learned counsel Mr. Nagendra Rai On the aforesaid facts, has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have taken the view and it must be held that every member of the mob, at least had the knowledge that the Act, done by any of them while moving in an assembly i. e. resorting to firing would result in the death which, in fact, happened in this case and this prima facie constitutes an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code. 5. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad While controverting the aforesaid facts has, on the other hand, submitted that the facts al disclosed in the first information report or the evidence collected in the case diary by the police during the Course of investigation and also the facts as mentioned in the charge sheet are not in dispute. Mr. 5. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad While controverting the aforesaid facts has, on the other hand, submitted that the facts al disclosed in the first information report or the evidence collected in the case diary by the police during the Course of investigation and also the facts as mentioned in the charge sheet are not in dispute. Mr. Prasad, quoting him as he submitted before this Court, went on to state that every words mentioned in the first information report is accepted, but learned counsel has asserted that facts stated therein do not Constitute an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code. In support of his contention. learned counsel has further urged that the prosecution case is that the members of the mob were carrying lethal weapons. There was a long standing dispute between the parties relating to some land, According to the prosecution, the accused persons came over the land belonging to the petitioner and fell upon the informant and his man, but none of them used the lethal weapon; rather the case is that the informant and his man were assaulted with the butt of the gun and with lathis. In other words, learned counsel contends that had the mob, the intention to cause the murder, they would have used the weapons or the gun and resorted to firing which they did not do and this prima facie, according to learned counsel, shows that the members of the unlawful assembly had no intention, much loss any common object to commit murder. 6. Mr. V.M.K. Sinha appearing for the State has also contended that the conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly in resorting to indiscriminate firing resulting In the death of one of the villagers prima facie indicates that each one of the members know the likely result of the action of the assembly and in such a view each one of them shall be liable for an offence under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code. 7. It appears that the learned Additional Session Judge on consideration of the facts placed before him in paragraph 8 of the impugned order has observed as follows :- “For the conclusion expressed above at the end of para.......... 7. It appears that the learned Additional Session Judge on consideration of the facts placed before him in paragraph 8 of the impugned order has observed as follows :- “For the conclusion expressed above at the end of para.......... it cannot be said that an offence punishable under section 302 road with section 149 of the I.P.C. was committed in the alleged occurrence.” It cannot be denied that a death has been caused and that also by one of the members of tile assembly. The offence under section 302 of the Penal Code definitely stands. Question arises who committed it. The case of the prosecution ill that the members of the assembly shared that common object or at least they had the knowledge that such a disastrous Act, would result, in the death. The case is that they were resorting to indiscriminate firing while retreating from the Bahiyar and in course of which a boy was hit by the fire arm opened by one of the members resulting in his death. Be that as it may, in view of the submissions made by Mr. Nagendra Rai at the close of the argument, I do not propose to give my finding one way or the other. Learned counsel has submitted that the stage of the case being resend to the court of sessions is not yet closed. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to section 323 of the Code which reads as follows :- “If in any inquiry into an offence or trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of sessions, shall commit it to that Court under the provision hereinbefore contained.” Learned counsel while relying on the provisions quoted above has further argued that the Chief judicial Magistrate before whom the trial is to take place at any stage of the proceeding even before the signing of judgment, if finds that it is a case which ought to be tried by the court of sessions he may and shall in that circumstance commit the case to the court of session for a fair trial. In view of the submissions made at the Bar by Mr. In view of the submissions made at the Bar by Mr. Rai I do not propose to enter into the facts of the case to give a positive finding whether the allegations as made out either in the first information report or the evidence collected in the diary do constitute an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code. No doubt, a strong suspicion is there and even a strong suspicion leading to such a presumptuous approach• of the commission of the crime cannot be overlooked and must be taken into consideration which may necessarily justify for an accused to face the trial on the charge levelled against him. 8. In the result, the application at this stage fails and is dismissed and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the trial is now pending will take action in the matter according to law. Application dismissed.