RAM DAS SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, by the petitioners is for auashina the order dated 16th Auaust 1972 passed by Shri B. N. Sahay, Sub-divisional Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 143. 144, 379 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the points involved in this application, it will be necessary to state briefly some relevant facts. An F. I. R. dated 12th April. 1972 (Annexure 1) was lodged by the Sub-INspector of Riga Police Station against the petitioners, who submitted also the charge sheet against them under various sections, but. however, cognizance aeainst the petitioners was taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate only under Sections 143, 1'44, 379 and 188 of the INdian Penal Code. The offence under Section 188 was attracted because it was alleged that the petitioners had disobeyed the order Passed under Section 144 of the Code of the Magistrate on 24th March, 1972 prohibiting the petitioner not to go near the disputed land.

(3.) IN my opinion, the above observation of his Lordship is not available on the facts and circumstances of the instant case. I have gone through the first information report contained in annexure 'I1 to the application. The allegations made in the first information report clearly show that a distinct offence under Sections 379. 143 and 144 is made out in the present case. IN that view of the matter, even if the taking of the cognizance under Section 188 of the INdian Penal Code is quashed, the petitioners can be tried under Sections 143, 144 and 379 of the INdian Penal Code. Reference may be made by Basir-ul-Hua v. The State of West Bengal. where their Lordships in Paragraph 9 of their iudgment. while dealing with the provisions contained under Section 195 of the Code, clearly laid down that if in course of the commission of an offence under Section 182 other distinct offences were committed the Magistrate was not debarred from taking cognizance in respect of this offence as well. Their Lordships reiterated in paragraph 14: