RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against order dated 16 -4 -71 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr upholding order, dated 3 -10 -69 of the Munsif Magistrate, Monghyr directing that the case (State v. Gajadhar Singh and others) should be tried before him as the materials on the records did not disclose offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which is triable by Court of Session.

(2.) ON the information lodged by the applicant Rajendra Prasad Singh the aforesaid case was instituted at the Barbigha police station on 16 -8 -68 under Sections 147, 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, who are apposite party to this revision application. The police submitted charge -sheet against the accused. Cognisance of the offence was taken by the Sub -divisional Magistrate and the case was transferred to the Court of the Munsif Magistrate Sri S.K.P. Verma, who decided to follow the procedure laid down in Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') for holding enquiry. Against that order of the Munsif Magistrate Sri S.K.P. Verma accused persons preferred to this Court Criminal Revision No. 487 of 1969, which was summarily dismissed. After the transfer of the Munsif Magistrate Sri S.K.P. Verma the case was transferred to the file of the Munsif Magistrate Sri S.P. Sunderka, who held usual enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code and passed the order, dated 3 -10 -69 holding that a prima facie case under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code had been made out and that the materials on the records did not disclose any offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, directed that the case should be tried before him, as it was not triable by the Court of Session. This order was obviously passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate under Sub -Section (6) of Section 207 -A of the Code. Against that order of the learned Munsif Magistrate the informant applicant preferred revision application No. 142 of 1969 before the Sessions Judge, Monghyr. That revision application was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sri B.N. Sahay, who without entering into the merit of the case, dismissed the revision application holding that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram v. State, AIR 1966 SC 911 : (1966 Cri LJ 700) a private party has no locus standi in a case instituted on police report and therefore, revision application filed by the informant applicant was not maintainable. Against that order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge this application in revision has been filed.

(3.) MR . Kaushal Kishore Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party has, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram's case (1966 Cri LJ 700) (SC) a private party has no locus standi in a case instituted on police report and no revision application on behalf of such a private party is maintainable.