BALI RAM ALIAS BALLI AND ORS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by six persons viz Bali Ram alias Balli, Sampat, Gama, Munna, Rampat and Bal Kishan for setting aside the order dated 16-2-1976 passed by the Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. Through that order the learned Magistrate has committed the applicants to the Court of Session to face their trial for offences of rioting and murder.

(2.) On 1-12-1975 one Lalta gave information to the Officer-in-charge Police Station Rohania in the district of Varanasi that on 30-11-1975 at 8 A.M. the six applicants had committed cognizable offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 Indian Penal Code. That information was reduced to writing and a case was registered against the appli-aant. The Officer-in-Charge entrusted investigation of that case to the Second Officer who was subordinate to him. That officer duly investigated the case and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence and also reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the applicants to the Magistrate who was competent to take cognizance of offences complained of. He, therefore, charge-sheeted the applicant, but instead of reporting the result of investigation to the Officcr-in-charge, he submitted charge-sheet before the Circle Officer of his Police Station, who is an officer of the grade of Deputy Superintendent of Police and, thus, superior in rank to the Officer-in-Gharge. The Circle Officer, in his turn, forwarded the aforesaid charge-sheet to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, who took cognizance of the offences disclosed by it.

(3.) The applicants challenged the validity of the charge-sheet before the aforesaid Magistrate on two grounds. It was, firstly, contended that the charge-sheet was invalid because the investigating officer had illegally submitted it to the Circle Officer without reporting the result of investigation to the Officer-in-Gharge. As a corollary of that contention it was also urged that the Magistrate concerned could not take cognizance on the basis of that illegal charge-sheet. Secondly, it was pleaded that the charge-sheet submitted against the applicants was defective because all the documents or relevant extracts thereof, on which the prosecution proposed to rely, and the statements recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure were not forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the charge-sheet. The Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, before whom the case was pending, repelled those contentions and committed the applicants to the Court of Session as the offences alleged to have been committed by them were triable by that Court.