Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1041 (PAT)

Satyendra Kumar @ Badar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-12-05

REKHA KUMARI

body2005
Judgment 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 27.4.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Cr. Revision No. 304/99 confirming the order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hilsa issuing summons against the petitioners to stand trial under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown and during investigation the police did not find any material against the petitioners, but the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate only on the basis of self exculpatory statement of a co-accused under Section 164 Cr PC he issued summons against the petitioners which is bad in law. He further submitted that the accused, who had made exculpatory statement, was put on trial and he has been acquitted. His submission also is that the summons have been issued against the petitioners on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet when there is no provision for submitting supplementary charge-sheet. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the police had submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and the ACJM after perusing the charge-sheet and applying his mind, passed the order. The learned Sessions Judge, hence, did not find any infirmity in the order and accordingly, by the impugned order dismissed the revision. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no illegality in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. 5. So far the statement of the co-accused under Section 164 Cr PC, even if the same is exculpatory the same would be admissible. At the state of issuing processes, the Magistrate only has to see whether there is prima facie case against the accused. He has not to see whether the material against the accused is sufficient for conviction. So if the Magistrate on the basis of inculpatory or exculpatory statement of a co-accused has ordered to issue summons against the petitioners, the order would not be bad and for that matter the impugned order cannot be set aside. 6. As regards supplementary charge-sheet, it appears that the police after completing investigation against the co-accused had filed the first charge-sheet keeping the investigating pending against the petitioners and then after completing investigation against the petitioners submitted charge-sheet against them. Therefore, there is no illegality in submission of supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioners. 7. 6. As regards supplementary charge-sheet, it appears that the police after completing investigation against the co-accused had filed the first charge-sheet keeping the investigating pending against the petitioners and then after completing investigation against the petitioners submitted charge-sheet against them. Therefore, there is no illegality in submission of supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioners. 7. I, thus, do not find sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners would be at liberty to agitate the matter at appropriate stages and in that event the lower Court would act in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order. 8. With the above observation, this application is dismissed.