AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.8.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Ist Class, Kiul in G.R. No. 49 of 2000/Trial No. 874 of 2003.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on the written report of Shri Milon Kanti Ghosal, Senior Divisional Cashier, Eastern Railway, Malda, a case under Sections 406, 409, 120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC') was registered as GRP Jamalpur PS Case No. 15 of 2002 against the petitioner and three others, namely, Subhojit Datta, Senior Cashier, Tuntun Choudhary, Junior Cashier and Rama Shankar Singh, Cash Peon. Cognizance of the case was taken by Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Ist Class Kiul on 13.11.2000 under Sections 409, 120-B/34 of IPC and by his order dated 26.8.2003, the Judicial Magistrate (Railways) recorded an order of acquittal for co-accused Rama Shankar Singh giving him benefit of doubt and he was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds because he was on bail during trial but so far petitioner and other two co-accused persons, namely, Subhojit Dutta and Tuntun Choudhary are concerned, the learned Magistrate held them guilty and referred the case under Section 325 of Code of Criminal Procedure (In short "Cr PC") to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger observing that they deserve more punishment than that of which he was empowered to impose. Against his order, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 395 of 2003 which, after hearing, was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge IX, Munger. Now the petitioner has come up before this Court making prayer for quashing the order dated 26.8.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Railways) by which he has referred the case of petitioner and other two co-accused persons under Section 325 of Cr PC to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger for enhanced punishment.

(3.) It will not be cut of place to mention here that initially in para-1 of application under consideration, it was stated that this application was filed for quashing the order dated 10.2.2004 by which learned Additional. Sessions Judge IX, Munger has refused to set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate (Railways) passed in CR Case No. 49 of 2000/ Trial No. 874 of 2003 and in last paragraph, further prayer was made that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding of Court of Additional Sessions Judge IX in Criminal Revision No. 395 of 2003 be stayed. On 3.8.2004 when further proceeding of Criminal Revision No. 395 of 2003, as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner, was stayed, petitioner made correction in the application by which order dated 26.8.2003 of Judicial Magistrate (Railways) passed in GR Case No. 49 of 2000/ Trial No. 874 of 2003 was sought to be quashed and stay of further proceeding of this case was sought and it was allowed. Smt. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior Counsel of petitioner submits that since Criminal Revision No. 395 of 2003 had already been disposed of on 10.2.2004 and the present application was filed on 16.7.2004, therefore there was no question of making any prayer for saying further proceeding of the aforesaid criminal revision and this itself shows that there was typing error in application when it was presented before this Court which has now been corrected. The result of correction made on behalf of the petitioner in the application and the sub-mission of learned Senior Counsel of petitioner amount that now the present application is for deciding the validity of order dated 26.8.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Railways) in GR Case No. 49 of 2000/ Trial No. 874 of 2003. the quashing of which has been sought.