Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 653 (PAT)

Ajit Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar

1998-09-10

NARAYAN ROY

body1998
JUDGMENT Narayan Roy, J. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 6-8-1998 passed-in Criminal Revision No. 132 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 6-4-1998 passed by the leaned Magistrate in C. R. No. 744/88 rejecting the petition filed by the informant for adding Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in the case. 2. Learned Counsel appealing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in this case charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 342, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code but due to inadvertence, cognizance was not taken against the accused persons under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code Learned Counsel further submitted that when the Informant came to knew about the order taking cognizance, he filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for adding Section 307 of the Indian Penal Cede and in any view of the matter that could not have been dismissed as there were sufficient materials to show that prima facie case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, was made out. It appears that it is a case of the year, 1988 and charge-sheet was submitted on 21-7-1988 and thereafter cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused persons. It further appears that in this case charges were framed on 2-4-1992 in the presence of the parties. There is nothing on record to show that at the time of framing of charge any objection was raised by the informant for also framing charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code rather he bad agreed to framing of charges against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 342, 325 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that after lapse of about two years a petition was filed by the informant sometime in the year, 1994 before the learned Magistrate during the trial to add Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. 3. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties upon the petition filed by the informant rejected the same. It further appears that after lapse of about two years a petition was filed by the informant sometime in the year, 1994 before the learned Magistrate during the trial to add Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. 3. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties upon the petition filed by the informant rejected the same. There is nothing on record to show that in fact charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons also for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, The petitioner thereafter challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge in revision which was also dismissed. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that some fraud was played by the accused persons in connivance with the court’s staff and the charge-sheet submitted in the case was, however, manoeuvred showing that no charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code Under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court has jurisdiction to commit the case to the Court of Sessions even if it satisfies in course of a trial or before signing of the judgment that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. 5. In the case at band, there was no material whatsoever before the learned Magistrate, while disposing of the petition filed by the petitioner in the year 1994, to exercise power under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session as the offence is also disclosed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides this, it appears that at the time of framing of charge, the informant could have prayed before the learned Court for framing of charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well. 6. It is well settled that charge can be amended or altered at any stage of the trial and since the informant did not raise any objection for framing of charge against the accused persons besides Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, there wail no option before the learned Magistrate but to proceed with the trial in usual course. 7. It is well settled that charge can be amended or altered at any stage of the trial and since the informant did not raise any objection for framing of charge against the accused persons besides Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, there wail no option before the learned Magistrate but to proceed with the trial in usual course. 7. Even assuming at this stage that the charge-sheet submitted in the case was manoeuvred, there is nothing on record ton show that the petitioner-in-formant had raised this question before the court below for filing a case against the accused persons and also against the court’s who is alleged to have manoeuvred the document, In absence of such materials and also in absence of the materials to show that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, in my opinion, the learned courts below have not erred in passing the orders impugned. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I find no merit in this application. It is, thus, dismissed. Application Dismissed.