Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 894 (JHR)

Umesh Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2010-09-15

JAYA ROY

body2010
Order Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant revision application against the (sic-Order ?) dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in S.T. No.214 of 2009, G.R. Case No.519 of 2003 (arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 78 of 2003) whereby, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra has allowed the petition which has been filed by the informant under Section 323 Cr.P.C. to commit this case to the learned Sessions Judge. 3. The case in brief is that a petition under Section 323 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the informant stating therein that the present case is a counter case of Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 77 of 2003 lodged by one of the accused of this case against the informant and others which is pending as Sessions Trial Case No. 180 of 2004 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. F.T.C.-III. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that though the Police has initially instituted the case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act but after investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted also under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but cognizance has not been taken for the offence under Section 307 Cr.P.C. as such this case is tried by the Magistrate 1st Class. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant has filed an application under Section 323 Cr.P.C. only to obstruct and delay the disposal of the case. He has further contended that the court below has absolutely no jurisdiction to commit a case to the Court of Sessions which is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions merely because a case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, the counter case cannot be committed to the Court of Sessions, when the' other case is at the fag end of its trial. Furthermore, none of the offence of the present case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 6. Furthermore, none of the offence of the present case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has contended that the counter case i.e. Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 77 of 2003 has been lodged by one of the accused at the present case and cognizance has been taken under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in the said case. The said counter case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the same is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III as Sessions Trial Case No. 180 of 2004. He has cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2001)2 SCC 688 , Sudhir & Others vs. State of M.P., in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:- 8. It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronoul1lcing judgments on the same day. Such two different versions of the same incident resulting in two criminal cases are com-pendiously called "case and counter-case" by some High Courts and "cross-cases" by some other High Courts. Way back in the nineteen hundred and twenties a Divison Bench of the Madras High Court (Waller and Cornish JJ.) made a suggestion (Goriparthi Krishtamma, In re that a case and counter-case arising out of the same affair should always, if practicable, be tried by the same court; and each party would represent themselves as having been the innocent victims of the aggression of the other". 9. Close to its heels Jackson, J., made an exhortation to the then legislature to provide a mechanism as a statutory provision for trial of both cases by the same court (vide Krishna Pannadi vs. Emperor). The learned Judge said thus: "There is no clear law as regards the procedure in counter-cases, a defect which the legislature ought to remedy. It is a generally recognized rule that such cases should be tried in quick succession by the same Judge, who should not pronounce judgment till the hearing of both cases is finished." 7. It is well settled principle! as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of cases that if there is case and counter case in respect of the same occurrence, for the ends of justice, both cases were tried together by the same court. It is well settled principle! as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of cases that if there is case and counter case in respect of the same occurrence, for the ends of justice, both cases were tried together by the same court. 8. Therefore, considering the submissions made by both the parties and according to the decision of the Supreme Court as quoted earlier, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. Accordingly, this revision application is, dismissed.