KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner was heard. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide impugned order dated 17th November 1989 has adopted a novel procedure with regard to the commission of offences in the same occurrence. Charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC has been framed against Darshan Singh and Swaran Singh accused whereas instead of trying the entire case together, the case of other three accused, namely, Banta Singh, Sardul Singh and Milkha Singh was bifurcated and sent back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa on the ground that the said case under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC was pending in the very Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that in the case which has been committed initially, cognizance had been taken on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party. However, according to him, both these cases relate to the same occurrence. In these circumstances mere fact that Judicial Magistrate Ist Class has refused to commit the said case against Banta Singh, Sardul Singh and Milkha Singh would not afford any good ground for the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa to send back the case of the said accused. Rather in such a case it would be desirable that Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa commits the said case with regard to the aforesaid three accused to the Court of Session so that both the complaint as well as the State case can be clubbed together and disposed of by one trial instead of having recourse to two separate trials.