(1.) This revision is directed against the order dtd. 7/4/81 passed by the learned Additi nal Sessions Judge, West Tripura.
(2.) The petitioner had lodged the FI R. on the basis of which after investigation the Police had submitted charge sheet against the accused (the present opposite parties 1 to 7) under Sec. 326/302 etc. of IPC. The accused opposite parties were committed to the Court of Session to stand trial. On 7. 4. 81 when the matter was taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Public Prosecutor was not available. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however took up the matter for consideration of charge and directed framing of charge under Sec. 326 IPC against accused Ganesh chandra deb and Kartik chandra deb and did not find any .sufficient ground to proceed against the other accused persons who were accordingly discharged and since offence under Sec. 326 IPC was not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, it was sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial.
(3.) Aggieved, the informant has come to this Court and Sfari A. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing on his behalf has submitted that the charge sheet against the accused was also under Sec. 302 IPC, the accused opposite parties had been committed to stand trial, that without the Public Prosecutor having been heard, the procedure followed was not correct and hence the order dated 7. 4. 81 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was unsustainable.