SANJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties and perused the original record which had been called for.

(2.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although petitioner is named as an accused in the first information report but after investigation police submitted charge sheet against other accused persons but did not send this petitioner Sanjay Singh for trial. It has been submitted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 11.8.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in GR case no. 606/2000 shows that the learned magistrate initially indicated in the order that petitioner had been falsely implicated and hence petitioner was being discharged. However in the later part of the order while giving the names of other accused persons against whom cognizance was being taken the name of the petitioner was also inserted at two places at the end of the list of the accused persons against whom cognizance was taken.

(3.) IN this case the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is not to the effect that magistrate could not differ from the opinion of the police report. The submission is that magistrate agreed with the opinion of the police and by clear order discharged him. At that stage there was a protest petition filed on behalf of the informant dated 29.6.2000 as the original record shows that the learned magistrate did not refer to the same in the impugned order dated 11.8.2000. It is clear that on second thought or on subsequent persuation the name of the petitioner was added to the list of accused persons against whom cognizance had been taken by the same order initially.