L MUNISWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in Crl.P.248 of 1975 are A.10 and A.13 to A.15 in SC. 4 of 1975 in the Court of the First Addl Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The petitioners in Crl.P.253 of 1975 are A17 to A20 in the said Sessions Case. The petitioners will be designated in the course of this order as stated above.

(2.) At about 7 A.M. on 6-12-1973, Ajit Dutt CW.2 was stabbed while he was in the Central Avenue of the colony of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Bangalore. The incident was reported to the police and investigation commenced. On investigation it was found that A2 and A3 to A6 had the common intention of committing the murder of CW.2 and in pursuance of that A2 had stabbed and A1, A7 & A14 had abetted the commission of the offence. It was also disclosed during the investigation that between 20-9-1973 and 6-12-1973 the 20 accused persons arraigned in the charge-sheet, had conspired to murder CW.2. After. investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was filed alleging that A2 to A7 were the assailants and that all the 20 accused had committed offences punishable under Ss.324, 326 and 307 all read with S.34 IPC," and further that Al and A7 and A14 had committed offences punishable under the aforesaid sections with the aid of S.109 IPC. The Metropoliton Magistrate, V Court, Bangalore, on finding that one of the offences was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, committed all the 20 accused under S.209 of the CrlPC, 1973 (to be hereinafter referred to as the new Code), and stated in his order that offences that appeared to have been committed by them were tinder Sections 324, 326 and 307 all read with S.34 IPC.

(3.) When the prosecution opened its case before the First Addl Sessions Judge Bangalore, the prosecution contended that a charge under S.120B, IPC also ought Ho b framed while the defence contended that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against A10 to A20 for any of the offences and they ought to be discharged. The First Addl Sessions Judge passed his order d|.8-8-1975. By that order, he discharged All, A12 and A16 and also held that a charge under S. 120B of the IPC in regard to the remaining accused was to be framed. He adjourned the case for framing of charges. It is this order that is challenged in this petition.