HORIL SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these applications common question of law and fact arise and as such they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) FACTS lie in a narrow compass. On the basis of information given to the police disclosing cognizable offence. First Information Reports were registered for commission of the offence, exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Police after investigation submitted reports as provided under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code ') and found the allegation against the petitioners to be false. When the reports, so submitted were placed before the respective magistrates, they differed with the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and having found that there are sufficient material collected during the course of investigation, which prima facie, shows complicity of the petitioners in the crime, took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners also.

(3.) LEARNED counsels for the petitioners contend that in a case triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate cannot differ with the Police report and take cognizance of the offence and the point stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar and another, 2000 (3) East Cr C 816 (SC); 2001 Cr LJ 123.