Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1107 (PAT)

Md. Rahman v. State of Bihar

2009-08-18

body2009
ORDER The petitioner who is one of the F.I.R. named accused of Rosera P.S. Case No.78 of 1995 for quashing of the order dated 23.11.2002 passed therein by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences allegedly for the second time under Sections 307/34 I.P.C., 27 of the Arms Act and 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act against the petitioner. Further, prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom. 2. It is an admitted fact that Rosera P.S. Case Nos. 78 of 1995 and 79 of 1995 were registered for the same occurrence. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, by an order dated 11.7.1995 directed that Rosera P.S. Case No. 79 of 1995 be amalgamated with Rosera P.S. Case No. 78 of 1995 and directed the Investigating Officer of the case to investigate and submit final form only in one case i.e., Rosera P.S. Case No. 78 of 1995 as Rosera P.S. Case No. 79 of 1995 was subsequent to Rosera P.S. Case No. 78 of 1995 as registration of more than one case on the basis of same First Information Report did not appear to be proper in the eye of law. 3. In Rosera P.S. Case No. 78 of 1995 charge-sheet was submitted, whereafter cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions after supplying the documents on 16.3.2000. Subsequently, a final form was submitted in Rosera P.S. Case No. 79 of 1995 adding Sections 307/34 I.P.C. alongwith other sections which is part and parcel of the earlier case and order is under challenge. 4. The cases were admittedly amalgamated earlier by the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate which had not been challenged by the prosecution before a Superior Forum. Unfortunately, there is no provision of law that two separate cases will be tiled for the same occurrence. There is also no bar for framing of charges under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. in the first tiral if evidence adduced shows the offence to have taken place. 5. In view of the facts stated above the order dated 23.11.2002 is quashed. The record of Tr. There is also no bar for framing of charges under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. in the first tiral if evidence adduced shows the offence to have taken place. 5. In view of the facts stated above the order dated 23.11.2002 is quashed. The record of Tr. No. 1558 of 2005 pending before Sri B.K. Srivastava will now be transferred to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, to make it a part of Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2004 and proceed according to law.