RAMCHAND Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, on September 8, 1980. The facts giving rise to the same may be briefly recapitulated, though they have been lucidly detailed in the order under Revision, Ram Chand petitioner lodged a First Information Report at Police Station City Panipat, in respect of an occurrence alleged to have taken place on May 6, 1980. The First Information Report made reference to the two parts of the incident, one of which involved Joginder Singh, Satvinder Singh and Jagir Singh respondents 1, 2 and 3 while the second part related to the alleged assault, by the remaining five respondents, namely, Palkar Singh and others. After the investigation of the case, the Police challaned the first set of three respondents who were committed to the Sessions Court by the Committing Magistrate, vide order dated August 2, 1980, to stand their trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. for the murder of Hans Raj, the brother of the petitioner and under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34, I. P. C. for having caused hurt to Ram Chand petitioner.

(2.) IT transpires that after a lapse of more than two months, i. e. on July 14, 1980, Ram Chand petitioner filed a private complaint before the Committing Magistrate, Panipat, in which it was alleged that all the eight persons mentioned in the First Information Report had committed the assault in pursuance of the common object of their unlawful assembly. After recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant, the Committing Magistrate committed all the eight accused to the Court of Session for being tried under Section 302 and other sections of the I. P. C. In this manner, both the challan case as well as the complaint case reached the Court of Session for further proceedings.

(3.) WHEN the two cases came up before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on August 28, 1980, an application was made by the Public Prosecutor with the prayer that the two cases may be consolidated for the purpose of trial. In order to assess if it was a fit case for consolidation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge got the records of the two cases produced in his Court and after going through the same and hearing the Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel both for the complainant and the defence, passed the impugned order. In this order, it was held that the two transactions mentioned in the First Information Report were entirely independent and hence it was "neither legal nor prudent and proper to hold a joint trial". The application filed by the Public Prosecutor was, therefore, declined, The learned Additional Sessions Judge then considered the question of framing of the charge in the two cases and concluded on the basis of the material before him that the second set of five respondents was prima facie triable for offences under Sections 148, 325 read with Sections 149 and 323 read with Section 149, I. P. C. These offences being exclusively triable by the Court of a Judicial Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercising powers under Section 228 of the Criminal P. C, framed the necessary charges for the offences mentioned above against these five respondents and transferred their case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. It is not disputed at the bar that the remaining three respondents are to be tried by the Additional Sessions Judge in a separate case.