JUDGMENT : Anand Prasad Sinha, J.–This application is directed against an ORDER :dated 29.3.1979 by which the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela had discharged opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and has refused to take cognizance. 2. It appears that the petitioner had filed an information to the police against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and a few others for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 447 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the charge sheet had been submitted but before taking cognizance, an application has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 stating therein that as a matter of fact they were not present at the time of occurrence and the place of occurrence and that being so, on the plea of alibi they had been discharged as stated above. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the plea of alibi cannot said to be such compelling circumstances at this stage warranting discharge of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and further it has been submitted that the delay in reaching the first information report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be a ground also at this stage for not taking cognizance. 4. It would appear that the learned Magistrate has gone deep into the matter and has fully appreciated the facts and circumstances in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Once the Magistrate is satisfied that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were not present at the time and at the place of occurrence, in my opinion, it strikes out the root of the allegation attributed against opposite party nos. 2 and 3. If and when the plea of alibi is taken and that is ignored on the ground, that it cannot be sufficient for passing an ORDER :of discharge in favour of some accused persons, in that case, any trial against such persons, if ultimately, the plea of alibi, is found correct will mean harassment and futile prosecution. Therefore, discharge on the plea of alibi will depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. In the instant case, opposite party no. 2 appears to be a Senior Advocate of Seraikela and opposite party no. Therefore, discharge on the plea of alibi will depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. In the instant case, opposite party no. 2 appears to be a Senior Advocate of Seraikela and opposite party no. 3 is his clerk and that being so, when the Magistrate is satisfied that at the time of occurrence they were in fact in the courts in that case, the ORDER :of cognizance against them will be said to be mechanical and without application of mind. 5. It is true there is delay in reaching the first information report but that cannot said to be so compelling ground at this stage for discarding the allegation, but this is a supplementary fact arriving at some decision and that being so, it has been rightly appreciated by the learned Magistrate. 6. In the result, the application is dismissed. Application dismissed.