PRAMOD TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 12.2.2004 passed by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Hajipur, Vaishali, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1997 (Lalganj P.S. Case No. 10 of 1996), by which he has summoned, the petitioners in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. On 26.4.2004, the application was admitted with notice to the opposite party no. 2, who has appeared through vakalatnama but chosen not to be present in court today.

(2.) The argument of the petitioners is that the petitioners were not named in the First Information Report which was instituted on 28.1.1996 by the opposite party no. 2 against five accused persons, but thereafter the petitioners' complicity arose through the statement of the witnesses examined during investigation due to which the police submitted charge-sheet in the matter and cognizance was taken. Thereafter, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the petitioners filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge and the same was allowed by the order dated 22.8.2001 (Annexure-2). However, when some witnesses were examined during trial they disclosed the complicity of the petitioners and then an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, and the petitioners were summoned in exercise of the said jurisdiction.

(3.) Submission of the petitioners is that once the petitioners were discharged by a competent court the matter had become final with regard to the petitioners and they could not be put on trial for the same offence again. More so, because the opposite party no. 2 took no action as provided under Section 398 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision Sohan Lal and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 1990 AIR(SC) 2158.