BABAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision at the instance of the petitioners arrayed as accused in Fatwah P. S. Case No. 3(12) 70 under Sections 143, 324 Indian Penal Code and 25 Arms Act, Komal Mahto being the informant, is directed against the order dated 28-8-1978 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, by which he set aside the order dated 23-2-1977 of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, discharging the petitioners under Section 251-A (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, hereinafter referred to as the Old Code.

(2.) A dispute between two factions cropped up in respect of certain lands which contained paddy crop at the relevant time. Apprehending breach of the peace, on 27-11-1970, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate deputed police and a Magistrate for preventing the same. A few days after, on 1-12-1970, one Tenni Pas-wan gave an information to the police about the tension between the two factions, one described by him as raiyats and the other as bataidars. Certain incident, undisputedly, took place on that date. It culminated in the institution of two criminal cases, one being Fatwah P. S. Case No. 2 (12) 70 under Sections 114, 379 Indian Penal Code and 25 Arms Act in which petitioner No. 1, Baban Sharma, was the informant and the other being Fatwah P. S. Case No. 3 (12) 70 under Sections 148, 324 Indian Penal Code and 25 Arms Act in which one Komal Mahton was the informant. The police investigated into the two cases and submitted charge-sheet in both of them and the cases were pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for disposal. In is undisputed that Fatwah P. S. Case No. 2(12)70 is proceeding against Komal Mahton and others in which the charges have been framed against the accused.

(3.) When the stage of the framing of the charges against the petitioners in Fatwah P. S. Case No. 2 (12) 70 reached, for the reasons stated in order dated 23-2-1977, which stated, inter alia, that the charges against the petitioners seemed to be groundless, they were discharged by the Magistrate, The prosecution party took up the matter in revision before the Sessions Judge, Patna and the revision application was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 28-8-1978. For the reasons stated in the said order, the Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that there was adequate and sufficient evidence and circumstances to frame charges against the accused persons and, therefore, the discharge order passed by the learned Magistrate appeared to be without any jurisdiction and fit to be set aside. He, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed him to frame charges against the accused. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come up to this Court in revision.