Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 386 (PAT)

Suraj Singh v. State of Bihar

2006-04-27

body2006
ORDER This application has been tiled for quashing the order dated 24.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge IVth, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 613 of 2002, whereby the plea of the petitioner that Special Public Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of Investigation cannot conduct the case against this petitioner, has been rejected. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that on the basis of a report given to the police, Gardanibagh (Shastrinagar) P.S. Case No. 336 of 1998 was registered under Sections 302, 307/ 34, 120B and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The State police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons. On the submission of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to another Magistrate for commital enquiry. The Central Bureau of Investigation filed application before the Judicial Magistrate entrusted with he C.B.I. cases seeking permission for further investigation of the case. After investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted chargesheet against two accused persons and the trial of all the accused persons is being conducted by the Special Public Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of Investigation. 3. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the local police and hence the C.B.I. is not competent to prosecute him and he has to be prosecuted by the prosecuting agency of the State police. 4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, however, submits that the State police charge-sheeted the petitioner but kept the investigation pending and thereafter the State Government entrusted the matter for investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation which submitted the supplementary charge-sheet and, as such, it is the Central Bureau of Investigation which is competent to conduct the trial. He emphasises that in the facts of the present case, when the Central Bureau of Investigation had investigated the case and submitted chargesheet against few accused persons, petitioner's challenge to his prosecution by the Special Public Prosecutor of the C.B.I. is absolutely misconceived. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the party, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Thakur. 6. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the party, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Thakur. 6. It is not disputed that the case was later on investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation which had submitted chargesheet against few accused persons. In such circumstances, the grievance made by the petitioner that the trial cannot be conducted by the Counsel appointed by the Central Bureau of Investigation is absolutely misconceived. 7. In the result, I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly.